Lords Sitting of 30 June 1978

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

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.

FOREIGN BOYCOTTS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
11.7 a.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mottistone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("for a period").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 with Amendment No. 17. As Clause 9(2) is at present worded it could be held that the exemption at the end of the subsection applies only to a hiring or loan for a fixed period, and not to a hiring or loan which is determinable by notice by either party but which is not expressed to be for a specified period. The present exemption in Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 for goods which are let on hire is not limited to a hiring for a period but looks to whether the supply was lawful at the time when it began. This is surely right, and the effect of the three Amendments is to amend Clause 9(2) to bring it into line with the situation which exists at present under the 1961 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("the continuation of") and insert ("anything done in pursuance of the arrangements for").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, leave out line 4.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 11, line 35, leave out second ("and").
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("1970") to end of line 38 and insert (",medicinal products within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968 (except cosmetic and toilet products as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State) and controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, except drugs which are excepted from section 4(1)(b) of that Act (which makes it unlawful to supply a controlled drug) by regulations under section 7(1)(a) of that Act;").
The noble Lord said: with the permission of the Committee I should like to take Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 20. The second, and principal Amendment, has two purposes. First, it brings within the scope of the Bill cosmetic products and toilet preparations which would otherwise be excluded by the exclusion of "medicinal products" from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9(4). Second, it excludes from the scope of the Bill "controlled drugs",

557
the supply of which is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The definition of "medicinal products" in Section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968 is such that it includes many cosmetic products and toilet preparations. It is appropriate for requirements relating to the safety of the great majority of such products to be imposed under the powers provided by the Bill and not under the Medicines Act and it is therefore necessary to take them out of the exclusion of "medicinal products" from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9(4). This is one effect of the second of the two Amendments, the first being a minor consequential Amendment.
The proposed Amendment also excludes from the scope of the Bill drugs which are subject to the controls relating to the supply of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The regime of control provided by that Act is comprehensive and there can be no occasion for the exercise of the powers in the Bill in relation to "controlled drugs"—a term which is defined in the 1971 Act as including products containing such drugs. It is appropriate therefore to exclude "controlled drugs" from the definition of "goods" in the Bill and thus to remove them from its scope. The exclusion of medicinal products from the scope of the Bill was effected by an Amendment in another place. The Government are considering whether it would be appropriate to make some of the powers provided by the Bill—for example, those relating to prohibition notices and hazard warning notices—available in respect of medicinal products, and may seek an Amendment at Report stage enabling this to be done. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert (""publicised information", in relation to a disclosure, means information which, before the disclosure occurred, was published in proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) or in a warning mentioned in paragraph (e) of section 4(3) of this Act;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 23:
558
Page 12, line 2, after ("and") insert ("any risk of").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment intended to make it quite clear that goods which do not give rise to risk of death but give rise to risk of injury may be regarded as unsafe.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.14 a.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 12, line 4, leave out ("might") and insert ("are designed to be or might reasonably").
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lyell, who unhappily is not able to be here today and who has asked me to express his apologies to the Committee. This is in the nature of a probing Amendment but, like all good probing Amendments, has the merit of being suitable for inclusion in the Bill if the probing proves to be ineffective, which I am sure will not be necessary on this occasion.
It seems necessary to put beyond reasonable doubt that the Bill does not confer on consumers protection which is too wide and more than was originally intended when the Bill was drafted. Consider the case of a carving knife, which, if used properly for the purpose for which it is designed, does not cause undue injury—at least not unless something untoward occurs. On the other hand, if the carving knife is used for purposes for which it is not designed—for example, cutting string on a parcel or something of that sort—it is easy to cause a nasty injury, and I do not think it would be right for consumers to be protected unduly against the liability of the manufacturer if they were to so misuse the implement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has suggested that I should draw a distinction between what might be called risky use and anticipated use, and I believe these would be useful words to consider in this context. Let me give another example: consider an electrical appliance where a plug supplied or manufactured by a different person is fitted to the appliance at or shortly after the time of purchase, and it then proves to be faulty. We understand that the liability to the consumer is even less clear in such circumstances; perhaps my noble friend

559
Lord Mottistone would explain the meaning of the word "safe" in that example.
Another possibility has come to our attention. Apparently there was a case in America where a lady bought a set of electric hair curlers, but instead of using them on her own hair she used them on her poodle's hair, and, not being designed for that purpose, unhappily the poodle suffered injury and indeed died. One wonders whether the manufacturer of those hair curlers would, under this Bill, be liable for the injury to the animal. There is a certain area of lack of clarity on this point and I hope Lord Mottistone will be able to set my mind at rest.
Lord AIREDALE: I support the Amendment. One always finds the odd lunatic who leaves a sharp knife lying about in the children's playroom or something of that kind and I hope it will be explained to us that a situation of that sort is not intended to create a state of unsafety within the meaning of the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I understand that an American court awarded damages to a man who used a hedge-trimmer to cut his hair and suffered injury thereby.
Lord MOTTISTONE: To take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, we are not takling about product liability, which was, I think, his example; we are talking about a definition of "safe" within the meaning of the Bill, and it needs to be thought of particularly in connection with the safety regulations and the various orders and warnings which may be created as a result of the Bill.
The Amendment would alter the definition of "safe" in Clause 9 and would thus be central to the powers in the Bill. Its effect would be to prevent goods from being regarded as unsafe for the purposes of the Bill if the risk of injury arose from a misuse of the goods. That restriction would not apply where the goods themselves caused injury but would apply, as the Amendment is drafted, where injury was caused by circumstances in which the goods were used or kept.
That brings us to the two points made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and
560
endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; but I will give two examples of my own and then return to those points. Unfortunately people, and particularly young children, are not always reasonable in the use to which they put goods. It may not be considered reasonable to open the door of a spin dryer while it is revolving at several hundred revolutions per minute, but a number of accidents have occurred in that way and it has been accepted that, on that account, an interlocking device is needed which prevents the cover of a spin dryer being opened while it is revolving.
Your Lordships will note that this is a safety device which is added to the goods in order to make them safe. If one uses a knife for a purpose for which it is not designed, it is not possible to have that kind of provision which is effective, and so, in that kind of circumstance, no safety regulations in the world will protect people from cutting off their fingers with inappropriate knives. However, there are events and occasions where safety measures can be taken, such as the example I have quoted. Another example is that it is not reasonable for children to insert their fingers or metal implements into electric wall sockets, but before safety shutters were incorporated they did so, with sometimes fatal results. To prevent the Government from imposing safety requirements such as these would seriously limit the effectiveness of the safety regulations.
To come to my noble friend's point about the faulty plug that might be attached to an electrical appliance, standards are established for the design of electric plugs and it could well be that under the terms of Clause 1(2)(c) such plugs will become more widely used, if not used exclusively. For that purpose I think this problem would be met. It will very frequently be necessary to include in safety regulations requirements which take account of aspects of misuse. To prevent the Government from including provisions to this end in safety regulations would be to narrow the scope of safety regulations unacceptably.
I hope that my explanation will satisfy my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think that the restriction that this Amendment would create would not be in the best interests of the

561
Bill. With regard to the comment I heard from over my left shoulder from a noble friend, not having attended the Second Reading debate perhaps he would not be aware that this particular Bill is to bring up to date the Consumer Protection Act 1961, which was passed by the Conservative Government of the time.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not think that there is any purpose in pursuing this matter at any great further length. However, I am still worried about the case of the carving knife, which my noble friend did not deal with. Can my noble friend tell me, before I withdraw this Amendment, whether a carving knife continues to be thought safe when it is used for purposes for which it was not designed? If a consumer chooses to use a carving knife, for example, for cutting string on a parcel, for which it is obviously not intended, and thus does himself an injury, is he, or is he not, protected by this Bill? If he is, it is right that he should be.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I take up this point? If we go on like this we shall arrive at the point of trying to make everything foolproof. The fact of life is that nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I hoped that I had answered this point. The fact is that some pieces of equipment are involved—and knives are a good example. Even I have cut myself many times with knives when using them, no doubt, for purposes for which they were not intended. The point about this is that we cannot have safety regulations which will guard against every known circumstance. What we can do is to have safety regulations which, where appropriate, can call for modifications to equipment to make it safer against being used for the wrong purpose, as in the two examples I quoted. That is as far as one could go.
It is true that we can say that this kind of legislation is only dealing with fringe events. But that is not really so, because the kinds of cases which we were talking about on Second Reading—I do not want to go over the Second Reading debate again—such as shutters on electric sockets so that children cannot put their fingers in them, form a very wide
562
application. This is a reasonable thing to do, but it would not be possible under my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Could it be added that we must bear in mind that if people are going to cut string on parcels with carving knives there is nothing that the manufacturer of the carving knife can do about it?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes. That is exactly the point. As there is nothing that the manufacturer can do, should he then be liable for the injuries that are caused? I am bound to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the answer that my noble friend has given. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Lyell will want to return to this matter at another stage of the Bill. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert (",and for the purposes of section 1 of this Act the Secretary of State shall be entitled to consider that goods containing radioactive substances are safe or not safe by reference to the radiation from the goods and from other sources and to the consequences of the radiation for users of the goods and other persons;").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take as well Amendment No. 39. The purpose of Amendment No. 24 is to enable the Secretary of State, in considering whether to make safety regulations relating to goods containing radioactive substances and the provisions of such regulations which may require such goods to be approved before they can be marketed, to take account of the peculiar risks of radiation. The level of radiation of goods containing radiation may not itself be such as to cause personal injury to the user. But that amount of radiation, together with radiation from other sources, may give rise to a risk of injury because of the cumulative effect of exposure which is peculiar to radiation hazards. Another matter which must be taken into consideration in making safety regulations is the likely increase in the overall population dose if the supply of any goods containing radioactive substances

563
is to be permitted. Amendment No. 24 enables both these matters to be taken into consideration.
Amendment No. 39, which is an Amendment to the Long Title of the Bill, is consequential upon Amendment No. 24. The Long Title, with its reference to the safety of consumers—specifically consumers—is no longer adequate since regulations involving radioactive substances will take account of persons other than consumers. I should perhaps add that it has been questioned whether other powers are not available in existing legislation. I can say that there are no powers to satisfy this particular point with regard to the Title in the existing legislation except in relation to Community Directives, which control the supply of goods containing radioactive substances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Repeals and transitional provisions]:
11.29 a.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) If a draft of regulations under section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, a statutory instrument containing the regulations shall not be subject to annulment in pursuance of subsection (6) of that section.")
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("Consumer Protection Act") and insert ("said Act of").
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("(2) and") and insert ("(1A) to").
The noble Lord said: In some cases safety regulations made under this Bill will necessitate consequential amendments or revocations of regulations under the 1961 Act. The purpose of the Amendments is to enable the safety regulations, and the consequential amendments or revocation of the 1961 Act regulations, to be made in the same instrument. But for this Amendment, the safety regulations under the Bill would be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure, and the consequential regulations, amending or revoking the 1961 Act regulations, would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and would not, therefore, have
564
been able to be made in the same instrument. The Parliamentary procedures for making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and under the Bill differ. The former specifies the Negative Resolution procedure while the latter requires the Affirmative Resolution procedure to be followed. It will be convenient if, when safety regulations made under the Bill necessitate amendment or revocation of regulations made under the 1961 Act, the amendment or revocation can be effected in the same Statutory Instrument as safety regulations. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 45, at end insert ("and in section 10(3) the word "(2A)" shall be omitted").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. In the Consumer Protection Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 there is no Section 3(2A). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Prohibition orders, prohibition notices and notices to warn]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, line 8, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, line 21, at end insert—
("23A. If a person discloses a secret manufacturing process or a trade secret contained in information obtained by him in consequence of the inclusion of the information in written or oral representations made in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule or in a statement made by a witness in connection with such oral representations, then, subject to the following paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine and, on summary conviction, to a fine of an amount not exceeding the statutory maximum; and it is hereby declared that the reference above to written representations includes such written representations as are mentioned in paragraph 19 of this Schedule.
23B. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the preceding paragraph in consequence of his disclosure of a process or trade secret contained in information if—

(a) the information was obtained by him as a person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule to consider the representations in question and the disclosure was made in his report to the Secretary of State about the representations or was made for the purpose of criminal proceedings or an investigation with a view to such proceeding; or

(b) the information was obtained by him otherwise than as a person so appointed and the disclosure was made as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 4(3) of this Act; or

(c) the disclosure was of publicised information.")

The noble Lord said: The Amendment implements the undertaking given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. The proposed Amendment prohibits the disclosure by a person, appointed under paragraphs 10. 16 or 19 of Schedule 1, of any information relating to a secret manufacturing process or a trade secret contained in written or oral representations, or given by a witness in connection with oral representations, otherwise than to the Secretary of State, or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings, or any investigation with a view to such proceedings.
This information should also be protected after it has been disclosed to the Secretary of State. The proposed Amendment accordingly also makes the disclosure of the information—about secret manufacturing processes or trade secrets—by any other person an offence, unless the disclosure was made for one of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 4(3). However, it would hardly
566
be reasonable to make it an offence to disclose the information concerned if it had already been made known to the public at large. Paragraph 23B(c) of the Amendment therefore provides that it shall not be an offence if the disclosure was of information which had previously been publicised by way of proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) or in a warning mentioned in paragraph (e) of Clause 4(3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 34:
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("and 21 to 23") and insert (",21 and 23 to 23B").
Page 20, line 7, leave out ("and").
Page 20, line 9, at end insert—
("; and
(e) in paragraph 23A of this Schedule the words from "and it is" onwards were omitted and in that paragraph and paragraph 23 B of this Schedule for the references to Part II of this Schedule there were substituted references to provisions of that Part as applied by this paragraph").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 32 applies the new paragraphs 23A and 23B to notices to warn, and deletes the reference to paragraph 22, which is not relevant to notices to warn. Amendment No. 33 is purely a drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 34 removes from the provisions against disclosure in paragraph 23A, in their application to notices to warn, references to "other representations" mentioned in paragraph 19. "Other representations" are those made concerning a prohibition notice after it has been in force for a period, possibly bringing to the attention of the Secretary of State changed circumstances concerning the prohibited goods as a basis for revoking or varying the notice prohibiting their supply. They have no corresponding application to a "notice to warn" as, once a notice has been published, that is it. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be a Schedule to the Bill.
11.36 a.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I hope that I am in order, as is said in the other place, to make a reference here to the

567
Schedule. I should like to make a little caveat by linking Clause 4—dealing with power to obtain information—with the Schedule. This is a safety Bill, and we have inserted into it powers which are very loose. Many years ago a member of my family invented a new process involving a sewing machine. I had better not mention the name of the machine—but it was not a Singer. Ultimately, the machine went around the world. Had the Bill been in existence at that time and had the man concerned talked to his wife about the invention he would have been liable to proceedings.
The firm was able to say that it was no invention of his, but that it belonged to the firm because he had discovered it in the process of doing his job. We have talked quickly about the Bill, but I believe that the position is blurred for someone who, in the process of his job, invents something and then talks in a local pub or club about the invention which he ultimately hopes to patent. A situation could arise in which an innocent inventive mind could be placed in jeopardy. I do not wish to halt this excellent Bill at all, but—
Lord HALE: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting, but I was afraid that he was about to sit down—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am about to sit down.
Lord HALE: Well, that would be a great pity. A few minutes ago I was about 14 clauses behind in the discussion, and later I found that I was about 17 behind. I have been desperately trying to follow the Bill clause by clause. I am not sure to which Schedule my noble friend is referring, nor which Part, and if he could speak for a little longer I would have time to read them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thought that the noble Lord had been listening to the Lord Chairman, and I thought it was quite clear that we were talking about Schedule 1. I did not want to delay the Committee with tautological or rhetorical arpeggios. I feel that I have made my point, and so if any future questions arise on this legislation, it will be noted that
568
this blurred situation had been referred to in Parliament.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to make a comment in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The Bill is about safety and the Schedule is about the rules for various types of orders and warnings. Clause 4, to which the noble Lord referred, deals with the restrictions on information obtained during the course of certain activities. Various people who might be concerned with enforcing safety are restrained from releasing information to third parties. I think I am right in saying that while there could be circumstances in which the noble Lord's inventive friend found himself at cross-purposes with this provision, in the ordinary course of events he would not, because he is not in the safety game. He is not an official, and he is subject to quite different rules and laws about protecting the confidentiality of his employers, which is a quite separate issue and has nothing to do with the Bill.
Of course if the gadget in question was a safety gadget, which he had devised because he was asked to do so, then the provisions might apply. However, it is perfectly reasonable that in the generality of terms we should protect the manufacturers and sellers of goods from too much of the information which is discovered under the Bill being spread to the world at large. Indeed, the various provisions in the Bill to cover this point were considerably tightened up in the debates in another place, much to the delight of all Parties in that place. So the overall regulations for preservation of confidentiality, which have indeed been further tightened up in this Committee, are what is deemed necessary by another place, and indeed by myself, to protect people from the consequences of any actions which may be taken under the Bill which could be detrimental to their business even if they are being law-abiding and following the safety regulations.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement]:
11.41 a.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 35:

569
Page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ("if he has reasonable cause to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened").
The noble Lord said: We are now at Schedule 2, which has the heading "Enforcement", and I wish to speak of paragraph 3, which comes under the sub-heading:
"Powers to enter premises and to inspect and seize goods".
Your Lordships will notice that under paragraph 3 there are sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), and, in particular, that sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) both begin with the words,
"if he has reasonable cause"—
and "he" is the enforcement officer—
"to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened …"
Your Lordships will also notice that those words, referring to acting on suspicion, do not appear at the beginning of either sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b); and without those words about acting on suspicion sub-paragraph (a), in particular, appears to give very wide powers indeed to enforcement officers. Perhaps I could intervene here to say that I should have mentioned that I am speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 36 as well as No. 35, because I think the point involved is very much the same in each case.
What is it that the enforcement officer may do under sub-paragraph (a) without having reasonable cause to suspect that something is wrong?
"… he may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any relevant provisions have been contravened, inspect any goods and enter any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling".
What do those powers amount to? In order to discover this, one has to read sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 in connection with paragraph 5, and when you come to paragraph 5 you find that if admission to the premises is refused the enforcement officer then has to go before a justice of the peace and, if the justice of the peace
"is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe"
that something is wrong in the premises, then the magistrate may issue a search warrant. But at that stage the enforcement officer can proceed only if he has shown reasonable cause to suspect that all is not well in the premises.
So we come back to paragraph 3 in the light of paragraph 5, and what does it amount to? It amounts to this: the enforcement officer can go into any premises other than a dwelling on a fishing expedition to see whether he may stumble upon some breach of some regulation if the proprietor says that he may. What power is that, and what need have we of a Bill with a clause which says that? Because that is what an enforcement officer can do today without this Bill. You do not even have to be an enforcement officer. It is a free country; anybody, today, can go to the owner of a warehouse and say, "I should like to look round your warehouse", and, provided he is not refused permission, he can go in and have a look round. So what is paragraph 3 saying? It is just about precisely nothing; so what is the point of having it there?
I can think of only one rather sly and unpleasant reason for having it there. I do not suppose that enforcement officers employed by local authorities act unscrupulously and unfairly—I very much hope they do not—but I suppose that, if there is an unscrupulous enforcement officer, and if he goes to the owner of a warehouse and quotes paragraph 3 but is very careful not to quote paragraph 5, which says, "You can refuse me entry if you want to, and then I shall have to show reasonable cause to a magistrate", then in that sort of way I suppose the enforcement officer can bamboozle some warehouse owner into letting him in without his having to take the trouble to go to a magistrate and show reasonable cause. I am bound to say that I hope the Committee does not approve of these fishing expeditions. To begin with, I always understood that the enforcement officers of local authorities are already very busy men, and I should not have thought they needed the power to go into people's premises on fishing expeditions. They have the weights and measures legislation to supervise as well as all the consumer protection legislation, and I dare say other duties as well; and if they have spare time to go fishing in people's warehouses, I should have thought the ratepayers would very much prefer to see a pruning of the staff of the local authority and a reduction in the rates, rather than fishing expeditions.
I know that this Schedule is very largely taken bodily out of Section 162 of the

571
Consumer Credit Act 1974, but I do not think that excuses us from looking very critically indeed at these powers of enforcement. That Act was enacted for a quite different purpose, and it does not in the least follow that the enforcement powers appropriate to that Act are appropriate to this Bill. I think we must bear it in mind that if we do not scrutinise these enforcement powers very carefully every time, it will happen again. The next consumer protection Bill will have the same enforcement provisions copied out from the 1974 Act, and before we know where we are we shall be faced with a series of precedents against which it will be difficult to argue. I should also like to mention that the 1974 Act was a very comprehensive measure indeed. It ran to 193 sections and five Schedules, and occupies 173 pages of the Statute Book. Therefore, the enforcement provisions there did not give Parliament quite the same opportunity to concentrate on this important enforcement matter as is given by the enforcement provisions of this very much shorter measure.
In winding up his Second Reading speech on this Bill the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said very much these words, that we must get more reasonableness written into this Bill. I very much hope that the Committee will say that, above all, we must have reasonableness written into sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
11.50 a.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps I should say that I have great sympathy with the main theme behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think that we are very wise to consider carefully any powers we give to enforcement officers of any kind to invade the privacy of any premises. I think that that makes a great deal of sense. However, I think that in this particular case it is not unreasonable for these particular sub-paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) to be in the Bill. The first point I should like to make—perhaps to clear away the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made about the unscrupulous enforcement officer—is that I would suggest to the Committee that one needs also to consider the unscrupulous traders. This safety Bill (and its predecessor in
572
1971) came about as a result of Green Papers and White Papers following the reports of Committees. These Committees were careful to point out that 90 per cent. of the manufacturers and traders in this country are very safety-conscious, are perfectly aware of their responsibilities and probably take all the action required under this Bill or under earlier Bills without anybody having to probe them.
However, there is the other 10 per cent. I am sorry that this is rather turning into a Second Reading speech; but many of your Lordships were not present at Second Reading because you were eating. I think it is probably important to widen the issue so that we may see why I object to Lord Airedale's Amendments. The fact of the matter is that in this 10 per cent. or so you get people who will import goods from, say, the Far East which turn out to be faulty. We all know of cases like that. I cannot hastily refer to my notes to give examples, but I do not think that your Lordships will require me to do so.
It is a fact that there are from time to time faulty goods for which special provisions have to be made. Under the 1961 Act there were powers for the Minister or successive Ministers to make regulations, They made only about 18 regulations in the last 17 years, which is not very oppressive extra legislation which needs to be castigated as over-government. It is only about one a year. That gives a measure of the amount of work, so to speak, which results from this Bill. One of the factors made known by the Committee which sat on this, and who reported in 1976, was that they were not satisfied about the 1961 legislation, because there was no obligation on local authorities to assist Government in enforcing these regulations when they come into being. It was strongly recommended by that Committee—and accepted by the Government and by me as being reasonable—that local authorities should be required to provide a back-up to the legislation and the regulations stemming from it.
May we turn now to the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I would hope that the Committee agree with me that we need balance the unscrupulous enforcement officer,—if he exists—with the unscrupulous trader who is probably much more likely

573
to exist; because, with great respect to noble Lords, in my experience, enforcement officers are very scrupulous, on the whole, in how they carry out their duties. If they were not, they would get the sack So I think that we can take that point away. The question is whether or not what the noble Lord calls "fishing expeditions" are wicked. The difficulty is that if you were to add the noble Lord's Amendment—or even, as I thought at one stage he was suggesting to strike out, 3(a) and 3(b) altogether for he questioned whether they were necessary—the difficulty is, where do you start? You really cannot say that a reasonable ground for going into premises is that that you believe the trader to be unscupulous, crooked or whatever. Apart from the fact that you might render yourself liable to being sued for libel, you must have a start point. As the noble Lord said, anybody, if they wish, can go into any premises with somebody's permission. Therefore, why include these clauses to underline what ordinary people can do? To take that out of the way, the reason for having these clauses, is that if they were not there (or if they were there in the form on which the noble Lord's Amendment would make them) they would provide a restraint on the enforcement officers who would not be able to act like ordinary people. So we must have something in the Bill to make sure that the enforcement officers have the authority to do the "fishing expeditions".
Let us return to the "fishing expeditions."! If it is possible for you and I to go into a premises and find some goods being sold which may be unsafe or may not be marked in accordance with Clause 1(2)(f) of the Bill, for example, is it unreasonable if we report this—because we happen to know, for we have studied the Bill; at least today we have—as a contravention of the safety regulations? I would suggest that it is not. Some people do this kind of thing. They may be nosey-parkers, but they are acting within their rights. These things happen around the real world instead of within the confines of this delightful Chamber. If it is not unreasonable for ordinary citizens to make complaints if they think traders are soing something wrong, why is it wrong for enforcement officers to do the same thing?
Furthermore, the power to enter premises
574
other than dwellings and inspect goods provided by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, as at present drafted, is consistent with similar powers in other consumer protection legislation—for example: the Weights and Measures Act 1963, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Fair Trading Act 1973, and the Act to which Lord Airedale has referred, the Consumer Credit Act 1974—neatly blanced between Governments of both major Parties and Parliament has, therefore, on several occasions accepted that it is reasonable and appropriate to provide such powers without any qualification that before exercising them an enforcement officer must have grounds for suspecting the commission of an offence.
I should have thought that the only other important point to make is that this Bill (and the regulations which stem from it) has been welcomed by all Parties in another place and, so far, by all Parties in this House. The principle of it is accepted, I think. If these Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seeks to put forward were to be implemented, they would seriously undermine the powers which have been incorporated within the Bill—and those powers are really based on the special Committee's report which sat to consider this matter in 1976. This took the form of a Green Paper which I do not have to hand. I would strongly urge your Lordships not to support this Amendment.
12 noon
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before we move away from this Amendment it is important that it should go on the record that the enforcement officers are already understaffed and somewhat overworked, whether we are talking about trading standards officers or shops inspectors, of whom I have some knowledge. There could be no suggestion that they were having to seek work. The burden of their song would be a different one: that there are not enough of them to carry out the laws which we are constantly initiating in both Chambers of Government.
I admire and respect the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in consumer activities, in searching through the Bill carefully, but traders themselves exercise the right to have test purchases in another connection. They employ firms

575
to make test purchases to see whether employees are ringing up the right amount of money, or indeed are undercharging to a relative. I think that the noble Lord can rest assured that traders—and, as he has said, we are concerned with honest traders—will not resent this. But I think we should search out and deal with the dishonest traders.
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend Lord Mottistone went rather far when he said that if this Amendment is carried it will undermine the whole purpose of the Bill. I do not think that is so. Whether or not it is a good Amendment is another matter, but it does not threaten the Bill itself. I take a rather more sympathetic view of Lord Airedale's Amendment than do the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, or the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We have to be very careful in granting these powers of search and entry. The Committee will recall the furore that was raised a year or so ago when new powers—or what were said to be new powers—were granted to VAT inspectors and, more recently, to officials of the Inland Revenue Department. The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, merits a more careful consideration than it has so far received. Even if the noble Lord is not advised to press the Amendment now, he ought to come back to it at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord AIREDALE: I am very much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I will accept that invitation. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. She underlined something which I suggested earlier on. The noble Baroness says, quite rightly, that the enforcement departments of local authorities are understaffed and overworked. I suggested that that was probably the situation. I simply do not believe that they seek these so-called powers in paragraph 3 to make spot checks or "fishing expeditions" without having cause to suspect that something is wrong in those premises. If Lord Mottistone's arithmetic is right, 90 per cent. of the traders are honest and above board, and nothing is wrong. The enforcement officers who go on "fishing expediditions" are going to he wasting a lot of time if 90 per cent. of their time is going to be without any tangible result.
576
We have a situation of nonsense here. It can be put right by the traders circulating to themselves, through their associations, an indication that if they do not want an enforcement officer in their premises, all they have to do is to refuse him entry. Then he is absolutely stuck except that, if he goes to a magistrate and can persuade him that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that something is wrong in those premises, then he gets his search warrant—and he deserves to get it. I am very much in favour of that being the position.
To have a paragraph of a Schedule which does not make clear what the position is, that the enforcement officer's power depends upon his having reasonable cause to suspect, is slightly dishonest. I am sorry to say this, but I think it is slightly dishonest to have a paragraph which does not make it clear that the officer must ultimately only act upon reasonable suspicion. Paragraph 3 is shabby in the way it appears at present and without the words "reasonable cause" being inserted at the beginning of it.
We have not been told by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, why it is that the enforcement officer may not examine the books unless he has reasonable cause to suspect—that is under sub-paragraph (c)—yet he can go in and examine the goods without having reasonable cause to suspect. Perhaps we can develop that on Report stage. In the meantime, I will of course carefully consider what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and other noble Lords have said. But I think we shall be hearing more of this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
12.6 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 17, after ("a") insert ("secret").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 makes the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of Schedule 2 a criminal offence except in specified circumstances. The disclosure of information for the purpose of proceedings for breach of duty mentioned in Clause 6(1) is permitted but only if there is no disclosure

577
of a manufacturing process or a trade secret. It is important that in proceedings the court should have all information relevant to the issue. It is thought that there is no justification for withholding from the court information about manufacturing processes which are not secret. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 22, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or in compliance with a direction under section 5(3A) of this Act or was of publicised information.").
The noble Lord said: We discussed this Amendment last night with Amendments Nos. 11 and 14. In discussion on Amendment No. 14, the noble Lord, Lord Lye11—and we appreciate he is prevented from being in his place today because of an official engagement—asked a question. This is reported in columns 480 and 481 of Hansard. He wondered whether I would be able to tell him whether there had been any problem with the existing disclosures which I was mentioning under the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act. At that time the communications system was not rapid enough for me to reply when I reached Clause 14. Therefore I make this reply now for it to be reported in Hansard in order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, personally, and I think your Lordships will approve of this.
The answer is that the Government are not aware of any difficulties of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, having arisen in regard to reports by local authorities under the present informal arrangements regarding the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act. No difficulties of this nature are expected in connection with reports by enforcement authorities under similar arrangements expected in connection with the Consumer Safety Bill.
That is the statement that I should like to be reported in Hansard. Apart from that, I formally move the Amendment as we have already previously discussed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
In the Title
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 39:
Line 2, at end insert ("and others").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 39 was taken with No. 24, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Trustee Savings Banks Act,

Internationally Protected Persons Act,

Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act,

Oaths Act,

Tuvalu Act,

Co-operative Development Agency Act,

Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act,

Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act,

Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act,

Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act,

Suppression of Terrorism Act,

Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act,

Union Theological College of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland Act, Abingdon Market Place Act,

Mile End Gardens (Portsmouth) Act,

Commons Registration (Cardiganshire) Act,

Christ Church Woburn Square and Saint Matthew Oakley Square Act,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
12.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Loans and grants for establishing common ownership and co-operative enterprises]:
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("or
(c) subsections (4) to (7) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name to Clause 3, which is the clause that deals with loans and grants for establishing common ownership and co-operative enterprises. I will not rehearse again at length the arguments I tried to put before your Lordships during the Committee stage. However, although I have had helpful correspondence about this from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I feel that I should give the matter another airing at this stage, because in my Amendment I have in mind what I believe to be a very important and growing need in inner urban areas; namely, the opportunity of giving assistance for starting up commercial premises associations—in other words, associations dealing with mixed developments of commercial and residential properties, which are not covered by the kinds of organisation referred to in the clause.
I find it somewhat depressing that specific proposals for assistance of this kind for those who are trying to keep alive those properties in inner urban areas where there is mixed residential and commercial use, have not been considered worthy of inclusion in this Bill. I think that many of us regret very much the almost complete absence from many inner urban areas of any residential life at all and the fact that the centres of many of our big cities die almost completely when the offices close at 5.30 or 6 o'clock. Attempts have been made, as your Lordships will know, to do something about this: they have been particularly successful in the Barbican area. It seems to me that we need encouragement of organisations such as commercial premises associations to do just this. It cannot be done by housing corporations and it is not being done privately, because the covenants offered by this kind of organisation are not sufficiently impressive for commercial organisations.
I feel I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this, although it is a newish concept, is not a "crank" idea or something that has just been thought up on the spur of the moment. The concept of commercial premises associations has the support of the National Federation of Housing Associations, of Shelter, of the Civic Trust and of many other organisations of that level of importance, and as established as that.
I am aware, from the correspondence I have received from the noble Baroness, that the Government are generally sympathetic to the concept I have outlined briefly; but I must underline once again that the fear that by including this kind of organisation in the categories there would be a rush of other worthy organisations through the floodgates, is an exaggeration. For that reason, my Amendment has been worded so tightly that it does not permit of extensions. It has been worded very closely indeed, so that only a strict interpretation is possible, as I think your Lordships will see, as to what comprises a commercial premises association.
Finally, I would draw to your Lordships' attention that the power proposed in my Amendment is in any event a discretionary and not a mandatory power. Local authorities would retain their right to refuse to help commercial premises associations if they did not think that they were suitable. Therefore I hope, realising that the Government are sympathetic, that they might be able to express their sympathy in some perhaps more positive way than they have so far felt able to do. I beg to move.
12.17 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, as I promised your Lordships during the Committee stage, I have given further consideration to whether it would be appropriate in this Bill to include the commercial premises associations. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has pointed out, I have written to him about it. I still remain of the opinion that the clause should not be extended in the way the Amendment suggests. I did go into it in some considerable detail at Committee stage and therefore, like him,

581
I shall not take up time by rehearsing all the arguments again.
I certainly accept that financial help towards the cost of setting up would be useful to commercial premises associations, but again it would be equally useful to all sorts of other bodies that may wish to take initiatives in the inner cities; and the noble Lord just now, in moving his Amendment, referred to other organisations, but said:
"such as the commercial premises associations."
The Amendment is concerned with commercial premises associations, and what the noble Lord is asking is that in a clause of a Bill which deals with common ownership and co-operative entreprises, this should be put in specifically as an association. I think this is where the problem appears. It is not a question of not having sympathy or the fear of other organisations coming in in the future; but what the noble Lord is asking is about an Act of Parliament, as we hope this Bill will become; that this should be added in a clause of a Bill which, quite specifically, is dealing with common ownership and co-operative enterprises in a fairly wide way.
In addition, I have to repeat that I cannot accept that we should single out in this Bill and in this way, for a specific provision, one novel and, as I explained to him in some detail, as yet unproven form of organisation. In fact, the objects of commercial premises associations, as set out in the Amendment, and also in the correspondence I have had from the noble Lord, are, I find, imprecise. They suggest that the supporters of this type of body, although the motivations and objectives may be very good, are not themselves, I believe, so far entirely sure of the role they should play, certainly in the specific form in which it should be included in legislation. For instance, the objects, as expressed in the proposed subsection (4)(a), make no reference at all to the provision of premises. It is much better that local authorities should assist any type of organisation that seems appropriate to them, and they have powers to do this. They can do this under their general powers, and this would provide a much more flexible approach than inserting a particular form of organisation into this clause.
582
Finally, the commercial premises association will, of course, be eligible for all the grants and loans in the Inner Urban Areas Bill, if they undertake appropriate projects in the designated districts or the special areas. We have had a fairly good discussion on this point at two stages of this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, realising that there are alternative opportunities for dealing with the objective which he has in mind, will now withdraw his Amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I do not apologise for raising the matter again. I think that it is of considerable importance and concern to inner urban areas, and those people who are trying to get organisations of this kind off the ground because they have a great potential. The discussion has been quite valuable and, I hope, encouraging to people involved in this kind of matter, and I trust that they are now aware of the opportunities available to them to seek finance in the way that the noble Baroness mentioned just now, and also very kindly mentioned in her letter to me.
I apologise for not having replied to her letter but, unfortunately, for some reason unknown, it was addressed to me in another place, of which I have never been, I am sorry to say—or perhaps pleased to say—a Member. I have only very recently had the letter and that is why I did not reply to her. But in view of what she has said, and also in view of her very helpful letter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Declaration of and changes in industrial improvement areas]:
12.23 p.m.
Lord PLANT Lord PLANT moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("or commercial improvement areas.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I associate with it, because they are precisely the same, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 28. The wording is precisely the same, as is the intention. This Amendment has been introduced in order to empower local authorities, in particular—

583
the non-partnership authorities—to promote the improvement and regeneration of run-down commercial areas within the designated districts. As the Bill stands, the power to provide grants for improving amenities, and for improving or converting industrial or commercial buildings, will apply only in industrial improvement areas which, by definition, exclude commercial areas. Yet there must be many inner city commercial areas where these provisions, in addition to the existing powers of local authorities to improve amenities themselves, would be extremely beneficial in making them more attractive to both existing and new firms.
The Amendment is in keeping with the White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities, which states:
"The development of services and office employment in the centre of cities and in the inner areas themselves will help to provide employment"—
obviously, employment to residents of the inner cities. However, apart from the changes in the operation of ODP policy, and in the Location of Office Bureau's role, there were, unfortunately, no suggestions in the White Paper as to how commercial employment could be encouraged in the inner cities particularly by local authorities. This preoccupation with employment in manufacturing establishments and with industrial areas, which is carried through into this Bill, appears to have arisen for the following reasons, and I shall just give your Lordships four reasons which I believe are behind this intention.
First, it seems to be thought that the decline of commercial areas in the inner cities is a direct and inevitable response to the reduction in population of those areas, and that intervention is futile. Assuming the diagnosis to be correct, I think that some attempt should be made, using the provisions of the Bill, to stem this decline or, at the very least, to ameliorate its physical and psychological effects in the form of derelict and run-down premises and a lack of confidence in such areas. More importantly, the diagnosis that the amount of commercial employment is related directly to the population of an area is only partly true. There are some commercial establishments, and, in particular, many offices, which, like manufacturing establishments, are not in existence
584
to serve the population immediately surrounding them, and are therefore relatively mobile. It is this type of commercial establishment that local authorities need to be able to encourage to stay in, or to move to, their areas and which this Amendment would help.
Secondly, it is assumed that commercial establishments, and in particular offices, do not provide any, or enough, suitable employment for the residents of inner city areas, particularly those who are unemployed as a result of the decline in the number of jobs in factories. Yet there is no doubt that, directly or indirectly, commercial establishments will provide some suitable employment; for example, offices generate local demands for electricians, cleaners, catering staff, et cetera. Only the amount provided is in doubt. Surely some extra employment is better than none.
Thirdly, there is the associated view that there are enough jobs in the centres of conurbations and major towns for inner city residents who wish to work in offices, shops or other commercial establishments. This is patently only true in London, particularly so far as offices are concerned. Why, otherwise, do the partnership and programme areas cover the main centres of the metropolitan counties and not central London? Yet even in central London, with its thriving commercial centre, there would be benefits in encouraging commerce in local centres of the surrounding inner area. For example, more married women, unable to travel to work in central London, would be able to take up employment in local centres, thus increasing the household income of inner London residents.
Finally, the fourth reason why there has been preoccupation with employment in manufacturing establishments, is, I believe, that any commercial property development that is needed in inner areas will be carried out by the private sector. Yet in the majority of the designated districts, the property market has not favoured commercial property development in inner city locations. The possible exceptions relate to office development in the central areas of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and on the boundary of central inner London. The local centres of inner London, the inner areas around the centres of Birming

585
ham, Liverpool, Manchester and the centres of most other designated districts, are not favoured locations for commercial development.
The relative importance of the individual powers that would be available in commercial improvement areas, as a result of this Amendment and the other Amendments that I have mentioned, would obviously vary from one location to another. In some, the emphasis might be on providing grants for the landscaping of vacant sites in association with new development; in others, on the conversion of derelict warehouses and factories to offices; in others, again, on the improvement of existing shops and offices. All the provisions of the amended Bill could be instrumental in improving confidence in the run-down commercial areas of the inner cities, and therefore, one hopes, in increasing employment and opportunities in them. This will not happen without intervention by the Government. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, out of a sense of loyalty, as much as anything else, I have pleasure in supporting what I consider to be a constructive Amendment to this Bill, which may be of use. Commercial improvement is necessary in much of the inner cities. I can give concrete examples, although I shall not bore the House with them. But inner cities are sometimes made derelict because of the high prices of office accommodation. Small commercial enterprises are finding themselves overburdened with the high cost of rent. I had better not name areas, but I could give the example of a small firm whose rent for a small office of two rooms and a half, not very far from the centre of a city was £6,000 a year, plus rates. That cost could not be borne by the entrepreneur of that legitimate commercial enterprise. In any case, high land values and high rents have helped to create deserts of concrete in some of these inner commercial areas. I believe, therefore, that a constructive objective lies behind this Amendment, and it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend. I shall listen with arrested attention to the answer of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to speak to
586
this Amendment in respect of small businesses and small commercial enterprises. In the area in which your Lordships' House is situated I understand that it is extraordinarily difficult to find a plumber, or an electrician, or a garage. I know of one small garage in Vauxhall Bridge Road which is having to move out of this area because the lease is up and it cannot find alternative accommodation. In the area in which your Lordships' House is situated it is almost impossible for inhabitants to obtain services, not because the plumber or the small commercial enterprise does not want to be in this area but because (a) they cannot get land and (b) they cannot pay for that land, even if they can obtain it.
12.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is an extremely interesting series of Amendments. I sympathise with their aim, in that they are trying to encourage the growth of office employment in inner cities. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend stressed the need for all forms of employment in inner city areas, and the changes which have been made to the Bill have, in the main, widened its scope to include all forms of commercial property. Therefore, the Bill is wider in that sense than it was when it was originally drafted. At the same time, I question the need for commercial improvement areas and the practical effect of this Amendment.
Because of the resources available, we have to remember that the scope of the Bill must be fairly limited. The further one expands it, the thinner the butter will be spread on the industrial or commercial bread. The commercial property market is, in general, better developed and more active than the industrial property market. Also, it is quite normal for offices to be modernised and improved during the course of their useful lives. Although the conversion of large factory buildings for use by a number of small firms is comparatively new and certainly needs to be greatly encouraged, it is a completely different kind of operation from that of modernising an office building.
It is much easier, I believe, for commercial firms to assess the likely costs and the viability of a conversion project

587
than it is for industrial firms to carry out the same exercise. The commercial property market can more easily adapt itself to the level of costs and rentals involved. It is true that some of the older office areas may not be very attractive, but the major action which can be taken to improve the environment in these streets—for instance, by re-laying pavements and planting a few trees—already lies within the power of local authorities and would not necessarily be carried out by private firms, anyway. The grants for cleaning buildings will be useful, and they are there. However, I cannot see that any of the provisions in this part of the Bill are particularly relevant to commercial areas. On that basis, therefore, it seems to me to be preferable to leave local authorities to use their general expenditure powers to make such grants selectively, as they think fit.
Again may I emphasise that the principal environmental eyesores in inner cities are those associated with industrial areas. This does not mean that everything is perfect and that things do not need to be done in commercial areas. However, because of a very strict order of priorities we believe that it is in the industrial areas that we need to concentrate our initial efforts—if we may keep it in that context—
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, could I—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence—and try to stabilise employment there. It is in the industrial areas where employment is tending to decline, and we should concentrate our resources there before we turn our attention to the commercial sector which, on the whole, is faring rather better.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. May I ask her whether she is right in trying to resist this change in the measure, for these reasons: If the noble Baroness looks at Clause 6(2)(b), she will see that specific provision is made there for the conversion of other buildings—often for the conversion of factories and warehouses concerned with industrial activities into commercial buildings, for the very reason
588
which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is urging upon us. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that the purpose of providing commercial buildings is not within the compass of the Bill, because there it is in black and white.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Plant is both enlarging the powers and also specifying them more clearly. I have already said that these opportunities are already provided for in the Bill and also in other powers which local authorities have. However, what my noble friend is attempting to do in his Amendments—which I appreciate and sympathise with—is to equate the help given to commercial enterprises with that given to industrial enterprises. All I am saying is that in the present situation, and having regard to what needs to be done in inner areas, we believe that in the first place we should concentrate on the industrial side. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made supports rather than takes away from the case that I am putting forward.
In conclusion, therefore, I must repeat my doubts about both the need and the practical effect of these Amendments. While sympathising with the general thinking which lies behind the Amendments—there is nothing with which one could disagree—I would ask my noble friend to withdraw them.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I find it difficult to withdraw these Amendments, because I have not been convinced by my noble friend's explanation. If it is possible for some help to be given to commercial operations and offices, what is the objection to that help being written into the Bill in the places which I have specified? My noble friend does not disagree with my objectives. If my assumption is correct, I fail to see why my noble friend cannot accept the Amendments.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way so that I may answer that point. The Bill covers help to commercil enterprises which are situated in industrial areas, but it does not cover help to commercial enterprises which are situated in residential or solely commercial areas. I do not intend to go over the ground again. It is the concentration on industrial areas and

589
the situation of commercial enterprises within industrial areas that results in this differentatiation.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for the explanation which has been given by the noble Baroness, but I think she must recognise that we all feel considerable sympathy for the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. In a sense, it is a great misfortune that this point is being debated on Report rather than during the Committee stage, because we can speak only once.
I believe that the first debate that we had in Committee, which was the interpretation of the Long Title of the Bill, was relevant. There were those of us who thought that the definition of "social need" implied something which, as is proving to be the case, simply is not true. The Bill is not about social need; it is in fact about industry, very narrowly defined because the money is limited and it can only be spent on specific objectives. I think the noble Baroness herself has recognised in what she has said that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is a valid one, and she is saying that the Bill defines "commercial premises" very narrowly as being commercial premises within an industrial area, as defined in the Bill, and not commercial premises anywhere else in an inner urban area, no matter how derelict or run-down that area may be.
The only valid argument which has been raised here is one simply of cost, and what I think the noble Baroness is saying is that the long and the short of it is that there is so little money with which to do anything at all that we must simply concentrate on the industrial buildings and not extend the Bill in any direction at all. That is a terrible reflection on the state of our economy and our life today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has rightly said—and he adduced four very good arguments for his linked series of Amendments—the regeneration of commercial premises does an enormous amount of good for inner city life. I do not know what the noble Lord is contemplating doing with regard to this Amendment but before we decide on this I think it would be helpful to know exactly how there might be regeneration of commercial premises in inner city areas which are not covered by the industrial improvement areas of this Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might say something on this matter. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. It is true that this did not come up at Committee stage and it was not even discussed in another place. I should like to take it back to consider the points that have been made, without making any commitment on behalf of the Government, because I think it deserves more consideration that I can give it at this moment.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, I must point out to the House that, if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 5.
12.42 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The powers of a designated district authority under sections 5 and 6 of this Act may be exercised in an industrial improvement area by both the council of the district which includes that area and the council of the county or region which includes that district.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I should like to speak also to Amendments 17, 25, 26 and 27, all of which are consequential. This is an Amendment for clarification and to avoid any duplication between counties and districts. I tabled it in order to get on the record an answer from the Government on what I think is a rather technical point but one which I consider needs to be clarified. By Clause 4 and the Schedule to this Bill an industrial improvement area can be declared to be such by a designated district authority. For example, if one takes London as a case in point, it can be either by the Greater London Council or the appropriate London borough council. The declaration is to be made by the passing of an appropriate resolution by the authority after consultation with the other designated district authority. The resolution under the Act must specify the date on which it is to take effect and the notice must be pub

591
lished, indicating its effect and naming the places covered by the resolution, and a map of the area to which it relates may be inspected.
The effect of Clause 4 and that of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 can only be exercised by the designated district authority which actually declares the industrial improvement area. So that in the case which I have cited—that is, if both the Greater London Council and a London borough council wish to have the powers of Clauses 4 and 5 in relation to a particular area—then both authorities must, as they are entitled to do under the Bill, go through the resolution, advertising and notification procedures. This seems to be a duplication of effort and expenditure which does not seem to confer any advantage on anybody and has all the appearances of being duplication and a further unnecessary round of bureaucracy. If I am right in these arguments, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could consider this point and see whether there is any opportunity to simplify the procedures and to enable the authorities to do what each would like to do and what we are all agreed ought to be done, without any duplication of effort. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in the first place, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that anything we can do to simplify arrangements for implementing the powers in the Bill would be extremely welcome. However, I do not think that the essential philosophy of the improvement area approach lends itself to what she is suggesting. Also I think she is overstating the complexity of the present arrangements, certainly those in this Bill.
It is essential to the success of the industrial improvement area that the local authority should make a clear and public declaration of its intention to become involved in the revival of the area. This is not just a question of obtaining or confirming the new powers provided in this Bill, but of a particular authority looking at the whole range of needs in the areas and the way in which that authority can help. We shall encourage both tiers of local government to co-operate over all the IIAs since both have general powers the use of which will affect the area. If both tiers wish to become fully involved in the area and to make loans and grants, then
592
both should make that clear by passing a resolution and publicising the fact.
We must remember the public and the applicants who are on the other side of the fence in this matter. Otherwise the public would have no means of knowing that the non-declaring authority had any positive interest in the area. There is no need for duplication of effort since the authorities can jointly undertake surveys, prepare plans and issue advertisements, and we shall be happy for them to send joint notification of the area to us, if they agree it between themselves. There are also sound practical reasons for each authority having to make its own particular involvement clear. If it did not do so, how could its officers approve any applications for loans and grants? Powers must be sought consciously by the authority rather than granted to it accidentally by the action of another, which would seem to me to open the way for complicated muddles and mistakes.
The last of the proposed Amendments indicates the complications that might arise when it comes to terminating an IIA. The non-declaring authority should obviously be consulted, but if it did not agree to the termination the IIA would be formally in existence even though neither authority intended to take any action. I can understand the motivation behind this Amendment, but I can assure the noble Baroness that after having given it considerable thought I have decided that it would complicate rather than simplify, and could result in great confusion and also difficulty and indeed unfairness to the public. Therefore, I believe it is right for each authority to make a separate public declaration about the extent of its involvement, and as the noble Baroness indicated that she was seeking to clarify the situation, I take it that she does not intend to press this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation as to why she cannot accept this series of linked Amendments. As I indicated at the beginning, this is not a matter which I wish to press, although having listened to some of the arguments I find it difficult to believe that the proposed procedures will make the matter very clear to the public, and I think it will involve quite a lot of duplication. We are, of course,

593
all agreed that people must know what is going on and it is vitally necessary to go through the correct notification and abvertising procedures, but two authorities undertaking surveys and two authorities publishing notices each dealing with bits and pieces of it seems to me to make for confusion rather than clarification. However, as I have indicated, it is not a matter I wish to press. I will read with interest what the noble Baroness has said, and, if necessary, I will write to her further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Loans and grants for improving amentities]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
12.51 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("() the cleansing or reclamation of wharves or docks;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 standing in my name. In addition to considering this Amendment, I should like to talk generally about Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I have tried to rephrase and divide an omnibus Amendment which I moved to the old Clause 4 when we considered it in Committee. I realised that there had been a misunderstanding between the noble Baroness and myself, and indeed I think many noble Lords were not clear about my intentions. I hope that by splitting the omnibus Amendment which I moved, to bring into the powers of what is now Clause 5, "loans and grants for improving amenities", into the "cleansing or reclamation of wharves and docks", "railway sidings", and then, separately, "shelters for users of public transport", I might be able to persuade the Government that an extension of the categories in this way would not in any way diminish the effectiveness of the clause, nor would it have the effect which the noble Baroness mentioned earlier of spreading the butter too thin.
I think it is true to say that in many inner urban areas the most important way in which one can improve amenities,
594
particularly in the ports, is by making available loans or grants for doing something about the dereliction in wharves and docks; of course, generally, not just in ports, but particularly in ports because of the fact that many railways which served the ports have now been abandoned. So particularly in ports, and inner urban areas which had old ports as their main previous purpose for existence, the existence of wharves and docks and railway sidings causes perhaps the most serious dereliction and general amenity problems.
I am thinking in particular of the advance in containerisation that has taken place. Much of the main business of ports such as the Mersey is conducted at the estuary, with a container port right at the estuary; therefore, there is almost no use at all made of the South docks in the Mersey, up the river. From articles I have read in The Times and other newspapers, I gather the same problem exists in the upper reaches, or some parts, of the Thames and the Tyne. You will find that whole areas that were previously busy as docks or wharves are now virtually derelict; they present a very unpleasant appearance, and could, with the expenditure of a little money in the form of loans or grants, be made to look attractive, be made to help the inner environment to a very considerable extent.
It may be that the noble Baroness may be able to persuade me that these specific additions I seek to make—namely, railway sidings, wharves and docks (railways sidings are, I might add, defined in the Railways Act 1974)—are in fact included in the categories set out in subsection (2) of Clause 5; namely, "the cleansing of watercourses, whether natural or artificial, or the reclamation of land covered with water", and "cleaning or demolition of structures or buildings." But I would need to be reassured of this, because, quite frankly, a very large part of the effectiveness of what this clause seeks to do would be rendered nugatory if loans and grants could not be made for the purpose of improving the appearance of docks, wharves and railway sidings.
I do not seek the construction of new railways sidings. I think that was another misunderstanding between the noble Baroness and myself, from the letter I have had. I seek loans and grants for improving the appearance, for amenity

595
treatment. If she can perusade me that this is already incorporated in Clause 5, then fine. If she cannot persuade me, I think it would not do anything to weaken or emasculate the Bill if she were to agree on behalf of the Government that these particular matters could be included.
If it is any comfort to the Government, the one Amendment of the three that I would not press very hard—because I have been convinced by the letter the noble Baroness sent to me—is No. 9; that is, "shelters for users of public transport." I could not press that as far as I would press the others. So far as the cleansing and reclamation of wharves and docks is concerned (Amendment No. 7) and railways sidings (Amendment No. 8), I think anyone who has experience of inner urban areas, particularly seaports, would realise how terribly important it is that loans and grants should be available to deal with these areas. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the purpose behind this revised version of the Amendment we discussed during Committee. I shall follow his lead and speak to all three, taking them each separately but dealing with them altogether. Taking the first one, the docks and wharves. I think this Amendment is really unnecessary, because docks and wharves are certainly structures, and therefore their cleaning already falls within the provisions of the subsection. Similarly, the phrase "land covered by water" includes docks, and so they are again included in this subsection. So I hope that on that Amendment the noble Lord will accept my assurance that what he is seeking, and quite rightly seeking, is already provided for by this power, and therefore his Amendment is unnecessary. It is actually covered in the Bill. That is Amendment No. 7.
On Amendment No. 8, railway sidings, by clarifying through correspondence what he meant, the noble Lord has been a great help. The idea that assistance should be given for cleaning railway sidings seems slightly strange and I was not sure how one would set about demolishing one. Now I am quite clear that it is not a question of assistance for construction, which would rather put it outside the Bill; if, as I understand now, following what
596
the noble Lord has said today, what he is suggesting is that removal of redundant sidings and the re-use or landscaping of the site might improve the environment, then I am sure that he is right, and I will be happy to consider whether we can bring forward an appropriate Amendment to do this.
On Amendment No. 9 the noble Lord kindly helped me by saying that that was the one that he would not press very hard. I think he is quite right not to do so, because bus shelters are in fact normally erected by local authorities; sometime they are erected by the public transport authority, which is usually closely related to the local authority and might even be an arm of it. So there really does not seem much point in having a provision for money to be transferred from one pocket of local government to another, especially for a very restricted purpose when there are much more general provisions for local authority finance for public transport services. I am aware that this financial procedure goes on both locally and centrally; but in this particular case it seems to me to be rather gilding the lily and adding an unnecessary addition to paper work and bureaucracy, which I think, on the whole, the House would rather reduce than increase. Therefore, following the noble Lord's own line, I hope he will not press that. The railway sidings matter, as I have said, I am happy to have a look at to see whether we can produce an Amendment. As regards the first one, I assure the noble Lord that the matter is already covered.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness for her reply and I am delighted to know—and I am certain that many people outside the House in the type of areas that I have mentioned will be glad to be reassured—that docks and wharves are included in the areas where loans and grants can be made. Therefore, I shall seek to withdraw Amendment No. 7. I shall not pursue Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, but, before I leave the matter, I should like to mention that my concern about shelters for users of public transport was mainly brought about by the fact that many passenger transport authorities, in order to save money no doubt, provide bus shelters through the medium of advertisers. The tendency is that advertisers, instead of putting bus shelters

597
where they are needed, put them where they think the kind of people who buy their wares are most likely to be waiting. That is what lies behind the Amendment. Passenger transport authorities should be more concerned about the people who use the transport and less concerned about whether the shelters will bring in advertising revenue. However, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert ("and the maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths whether they he adopted highways or not")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 are like Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, in. that they are all aimed to produce a debate on the elements which were either indicated as being required by the inner area studies; or envisaged in the White Paper, Policy for Inner Cities; or shown by the pioneering Rochdale to be desirable; or incorporated in the Tyne and Wear Bill; or deserve to be considered because the AMA says that it needs them, or because as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has just shown, there is a special need which has not so far been identified. The Amendments between them cover the matters to which I have referred, but Her Majesty's Government seem to have left them out. I think that the House would like to know why they have been left out and if they are not happy with that to try and ensure that they are included before the Bill leaves us.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for writing to me about these Amendments which I tabled at an earlier stage, but which we did not discuss. In answer to me she made three points which have been seen by some noble Lords, but not be everyone who is taking part in this debate. First, she makes the point that if we grant powers which are too extensive or too widely used, they would distort regional policy. Secondly. she says that they are powers which are such that they would reduce the distinction between the partnership and programme areas, on the one hand, and the rest of the local authorities, on the other. Thirdly, she says,
598
that they should be directed towards improving areas and not towards subsidising industries' normal costs for purchasing plant and machinery. In so far as I had put down Amendments upon which that last criticism bore, I have not pursued them.
However, I must say that I find the first two arguments which the noble Baroness put forward most unconvincing and for three main reasons. First, I do not think that it can be claimed that there is any danger of regional policy being distorted. because the Secretary of State himself controls the designation of the designated areas under Clause 1. Secondly, he also has the power to control the size and designation of the industrial improvement areas—paragraph 2 of the Schedule—so that is entirely within his control. Thirdly, on top of both of those factors, the whole operation of the Bill is subject to the arrangements as described in Clause 7. Therefore, there is no question of opening the sluicegates to things which will upset regional policy and so forth.
The noble Baroness went on in her letter to say that there may be a case for local authorities generally to have these greater powers that have been pioneered by Rochdale and secured by Tyne and Wear in their Private Bill. She says that Her Majesty's Government are ready to consider suggestions from the associations for greater power. The Amendments that I have tabled all come from the associations. They come mainly directly from the AMA which is the association chiefly concerned. The noble Baroness then went on to say that this is not a suitable Bill for them. I should like to ask the House to agree with me that this is an eminently suitable Bill for the use of these powers and for testing them in a limited manner entirely under the control of the Secretary of State, before any question arises of considering them for general application, which she admits is a possibility. Those are all general points which apply to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13.
I should now like to come specifically to Amendment No. 10 which deals with
"the maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths whether they be adopted highways or not".
The Government White Paper (Cmnd (6845) at paragraph 54(b) specifically mentions:

599
"…Designing a Bill which will assist owners to carry out improvements to access ".
Certainly the Rochdale experience in Crawford Street reinforces the need for special powers to assist in the improvement of access. However, under Clause 5(2)(e) the Bill provides for grants and loan towards the construction of access roads. I cannot for the life of me see why on earth Her Majesty's Government have changed their minds and have ruled out of court the far less expensive and often more desirable, from an environmental point of view, possibility of giving aid and assistance for improving existing roads and have only allowed for the possibility of constructing new ones. In my view that is quite inappropriate and far too inflexible for an industrial improvement area.
In her letter on this point the noble Baroness says that it is not appropriate to have this included because it is part of the regular routine work of the highway authorities to improve and maintain their roads. That may be so, but there are other items which are also routine. Clause 5(2)(c) mentions the cleansing of watercourses and Clause 5(2)(e) mentions the construction of parking spaces and so on. They also are routine matters, but they are included. Therefore, why not include this matter? Furthermore, while we are about it, we need all the flexibility that we can possibly have in an industrial improvement area, so why do we not provide for it to be possible to give assistance as regards roads which are not under the normal responsibility of the highway authorities because they are private roads belonging to some other authority? I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if I have understood him correctly, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to be speaking to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 together. I should like to make a few comments on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. As regards Amendment No. 10, although I have some sympathy with this Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered the possibility that the Amendment could provide a way of enabling pressure to be put on local authorities to work on roads which have not been adopted when, in fact, that ought to be the responsibility of the owners of those unadopted roads to do it
600
for themselves. In other words, it could provide a loophole enabling people to get out of their responsibility, if I may put it that way, and try to pass it smartly on to the local authority. Of course, the responsibility to which I am referring is that of making up, and finally getting adopted, the unadopted roads. I wonder whether the noble Lord has not gone too far and may be amending a major Act of Parliament, as regards the adoption of roads, by slight of hand. However, I am anxious to hear the comments of my noble friend on this matter, but I sense some danger in what the noble Lord is proposing.
As regards Amendment No. 11, may I say how grateful I was to my noble friend for kindly writing to me about the remarks that I made during the Committee stage. However, she did not convince me in her letter about the issues behind Amendment No. 11. I think it is an omission in Clause 5(2) that there are no powers for what is virtually the restoration of buildings. That subsection is all about the construction of fencing or walls, landscaping, cleansing, cleaning or demolition and the construction of parking spaces, which are all very useful amenity improvements. But as I said in Committee, there are redundant buildings—which may not attract a grant in any other way and which may not be suitable for loan in any other way—that may be very useful for amenity purposes. I instanced redundant churches. Equally well, I could have instanced redundant factories.
They do not really come under Clause 6, because that deals with grants for improving them for commercial or industrial use. However, in many cases we have voluntary trusts and groups of local people who will gladly take on some redundant building and adapt it for community purposes. Some such buildings are part of our industrial landscape. They may not be good enough to attract grants as historic buildings, but they are certainly worth preserving and they add to the scene of industrial areas. In many cases I should be very sorry to see them go simply by demolition when there might be the possibility of having them restored, adapted and brought into use—particularly by voluntary groups—for amenity purposes. Therefore, I would strongly press my noble friend to accept Amendment No. 11. It contains a very useful additional

601
power to add to Clause 5, and I hope very much that she will feel able to accept it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made some general statements and then went on to deal with the specific Amendments. He was kind enough to quote very fully from my letter to him, which covers a number of the general points in the context that we are discussing. Therefore, I shall speak specifically to the Amendments. Amendment No. 10 deals with maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths. I must repeat that the purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill is not to subsidise the operating costs of firms within the industrial improvement area, but to encourage and assist with permanent improvements to the fabric and amenities of the area. The maintenance of unadopted roads and footpaths clearly falls outside the aim of the present clause.
I think that there is something in what my noble friend Lord Northfield said—I appreciate that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—about the danger of this acting as a very strong disincentive to people to undertake what they should undertake and to pass it on to be looked after in the field of public expenditure. I think that my noble friend covered that point extremely well. Therefore, as a matter of routine I think it would be wrong for a local authority to subsidise a firm's operating costs. Clearly, the maintenance of its premises and the surrounding area constitutes legitimate operating costs. As for the adopted roads and footpaths, which he mentions in his Amendment, they are already the responsibility of the local authority, and in fact do not need to be covered again. Improvements to roads and footpaths, as opposed to maintenance, can often be grant-aided under subsections (2)(e) or (b) as appropriate. As I think I pointed out during the Committee stage or certainly in my letters to noble Lords, landscaping might well include diverting or improving a footpath. The constituent parts of these Amendments, therefore, are either unnecessary or contrary to the principle of this fairly circumscribed Bill—which it had to be in order to do the job it set out to do. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept that.
602
Amendment No. 11 refers to the exterior repair or painting of buildings. Painting and exterior repairs are regarded as routine maintenance, and therefore fall outside the scope of this clause. If repairs are carried out in the course of improving or converting a building, they could be grant-aided under Clause 6. Again, the purpose of this clause is not to subsidise the operating costs of firms. I am sorry to keep repeating this, but I have to do so in order that we are absolutely sure for what purposes the monies available under the Bill can and should be used.
I certainly accept that the external appearance of a building will have a great influence on the overall quality of the environment, but so will many other things which it is quite impossible to cover in the expenditure available. But it is certainly the proper function of any firm to keep its premises in good repair and that includes regular painting. My noble friend Lord Northfield went rather wide when he spoke about the conversion of warehouses which may not be eligible for a grant under the historic building legislation. In that case more than just painting or repairing the outside would be involved; probably a very large construction job and a complete rehabilitation job would be required. This would either come under powers which are to be found in other legislation or under Clause 6 of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I did not understand her when she has twice said that this could be covered by Clause 6. As I read Clause 6—and I hope she will correct me if I am wrong—I thought it covered industrial and commercial buildings intended for, or already being used for, commercial or industrial purposes. My whole point concerns when they are going to be converted for amenity use, and I do not think that that point is covered by Clause 6.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as I have said, I am talking in the context of their conversion and use for industrial purposes. As I pointed out in my letter to my noble friend, in the Bill we are concerned with industrial use, which—in spite of what the noble Baroness keeps saying—certainly has its social connotation; because if a

603
warehouse or building is made fit for industrial use, it not only fulfils an industrial purpose but certainly adds to the social environment because it is in use, is in good repair, looks very much better and adds to the quality of life of the locality as opposed to something that is not made fit.
I find this very difficult, but my own personal sympathy will always be to extend things to cover amenity areas. But we are dealing with a Bill which is revitalising and encouraging industrialisation in the inner areas. The fact that it is important that the environmental concept and an environmental dimension should come with it is different from saying that one should be using this particular money for converting any of these structures for purely amenity purposes.
The Amendment refers to regular painting and ties that up with the fact that the clause covers cleaning. We distinguish this from cleaning, which can be a major task and one which is not always normally regarded as essential to maintaining the fabric of a building in a sound condition, but which both improves the look of the building and does not affect the fact that the building is being converted or used for industrial use. It is for that reason that cleaning is included in grants under Clause 5 and so improves both the industrial and the environmental areas. I really cannot see why a local authority should, as a regular matter, assist in the external repair and painting of an industrial or commercial premises. It is for that reason that, unfortunately, I must resist this Amendment as well.
Then we come to the last Amendment, No. 13, which deals with the preparing or improving of sites or the extension of existing buildings. This Amendment would extend in a singificant way the scope of a grant of up to £1,000 for every job preserved or created in an industrial improvement area. All the way through the Bill, despite what the noble Lord said, we are careful to distinguish between the partnership areas, which are those in most urgent need of financial help, and the other designated areas.
It would allow such grants to be given for site preparation works for new industrial or commercial buildings, and we do
604
not see the industrial improvement areas as areas where there will he construction of new industrial or commercial buildings on a large scale. Rather we see in them that the emphasis will be on the retention and re-use of existing buildings. The relevance of this proposal to the grant-aided site preparation cost is doubtful, but it would be wrong to include the Amendment in the Bill for another reason. The Bill carefully gives to partnership areas which have the most severe problems—and which I have already mentioned—and the greatest need, the greatest powers to assist industry. Among these extra powers for the partnership areas are those of Clause 9 which w ill allow interest-free loans to be given for site preparation purposes. This Amendment would cut across that careful gradation of powers and would be contrary to the whole approach of the Bill.
This resistance to these Amendments is not on the basis that these are not worthy things to be done. However, within a Bill of this kind one could go on for ever including, extending, and expanding on things which of course we should all on all sides of the House like to see done but which would make the whole Bill and the whole scope of the Bill very much larger than either was intended or can possibly be allowed for out of resources at the present time. It is for these reasons that, in order to save the time of the House, I have, as other noble Lords have, dealt with the three Amendments together, and would ask that the noble Lord does not press them.
1.23 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the whole House will find that a disappointing reply. I am not sure that we should all fight at our most hard on all three of these Amendments. However, may we return to Amendment No. 11, which I think is a matter on which we all agreed. I am bound to say, after listening to the noble Baroness, that I did not quite understand her reply. I have much more sympathy for the points she made on Amendment No. 10—I can see the force of Lord Northfield's argument on that—and on the new Amendment No. 13. On Amendment No. 11 it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was using one argument to defend the Bill and another

605
argument on the same point to explain why we could not have Amendment No. 11.
I do not claim to be an expert on the cleaning of buildings or indeed on their external repair, but I have enough knowledge about the cleaning of buildings— I am thinking particularly of Oxford colleges—to know that it is always said that the cleaning of buildings actually improves them in the sense that getting the grime off strenghtens them and makes a great deal of difference. That, of course, is allowed. But the external repair, which again is something which goes on over a long period of time as an old building begins to decay, is something excluded from this particular matter.
The noble Baroness argued that, once this was written in, everybody would be queueing up for a grant and there would be no end to it all. The whole of Clause 5 is permissive, so if the local authority thinks it ought not to do it, it need not do it. I just find it difficult to understand why Clause 5(2)(d), or indeed 5(2)(b), should be in the Bill, and it is impossible to have this proposed new subsection (f). It does not seem to me that it is committing a local authority to great expenditure. It is allowing a local discretion where it thinks it right, and I find it difficult to see that a different principle is being adduced.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, earlier on in this debate there was a mild criticism of the noble Baroness and her Department from the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in respect of correspondence between us. It is only fair for me now to say that when we have special benefits they should be mentioned, and only just now a little bird dropped a note beside me headed "Lord Sandford" which bore a remarkable resemblance to what the noble Baroness has just been saying to us, and I am grateful for it. I think it may be because the Department has not always remembered that Ministers have changed round. Nevertheless, it is very helpful to know what is coming in the debate just before it comes.
In respect of Amendment No. 10 I do not think that the noble Baroness has answered my main point, which is why it is appropriate to have in the Bill provision for powers to aid in the contruction of new accesses, which is certainly a function of
606
the highway authority, and not for improvements, which in many cases would be a much more desirable activity. However, I shall not press the point because I do not think it is as strong as the next one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.26 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("(f) the exterior repair or painting of buildings").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on adopting a very useful dodge for getting a chance of speaking twice on the same Amendment during Report stage, because of course she is now entitled to speak to this Amendment again if she wants to. I shall very much welcome it if she does. What I was saying was by way of preliminary to all three Amendments, but I should like to speak to this one specifically in addition.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, is not the noble Lord doing exactly the same thing? He moved them, and spoke to them all. I was trying to help. I do not want to speak to them again at all, and I should be happy if he would follow the same lines.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall not speak at all extensively, but it is an Amendment which I think has a great deal more force than Amendment No. 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and my noble friend Lady Young, have said. Take, for instance—and the noble Baroness will have seen this herself—this huge factory in Rochdale which is largely disused and is in a derelict area and has an enormous chimney. One cannot possibly say that it is the routine maintenance work of the very small firm which occupies a small proportion of that factory to be responsible for its repair, painting and maintenance. But, for the sake of the area as a whole, it was important that the whole building was put into good shape and made to look nice. Rochdale, using a great deal of drive, imagination, and ingenuity, persuaded ICI Paints Division to do it for them. But we cannot proceed throughout all the industrial improvement areas by adopting dodges of that kind.

607
It seems to me entirely appropriate that this power should be provided for in the Bill so that when there are not generous firms like ICI around, who can be persuaded to do this, the local authorities can use their proper powers. This was a matter wihch was incorporated specifically in the Tyne and Wear Act at Section 56(2)(b), and I really do not see any reason why cleaning and demolition should be in the Bill while painting or repairing, which are equally appropriate measures but less drastic and possibly cheaper, should not be in the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if we are all taking advantage of the possibility of two speeches, may I say a few words to my noble friend. She is being slightly restrictive in the definition of amenities. That is what it is really all about. She is saying that Clause 5 covers only clearing up the external landscape. We are saying that there is some need to preserve some of the industrial heritage as well when it has become disused and might be used for good social purposes, and we regard that as amenity. That is the difference between us. Under the Amendment a voluntary group, for example, could have help with the exterior repair of such a building. This is a very small extension of the definition of "amenity" and I
hope my noble friend will agree to look at the matter before Third Reading, rather than force us into a difficult position today.
Baroness BIRK: It is unfortunate, my Lords, in that this time-saving thing has worked the other way. This is simply trying to make sure that local authorities are not given the financial responsibility of having to do things, or being asked to do things, which firms themselves should undertake, and it is really in the interest of everyone concerned, ratepayers and taxpayers. That is what it is all about and the distinction between cleaning buildings and painting them is very real.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, my only answer to that is that there would be nothing in the clause, if amended, which would oblige a local authority to make a loan available or pay a grant; it would be entirely within their discretion. If they thought a firm should do the job itself, they would not pay a grant. I feel I must press the Amendment.
1.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Alport, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Banks, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Byers, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Clancarty, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Crathorne, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Derwent, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 [Grants for converting or improving building]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
1.39 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("£1,000 ") and insert ("£1,500").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can speak briefly to this Amendment because we discussed it in Committee, and I tabled it again because considerable sympathy was expressed for it at that stage by many noble Lords. On reading the Hansard report of those proceedings I felt that the noble Baroness had not produced a sufficiently clear reason for inserting in the clause £1,000 and not £1,500.
The issue is simple. The clause covers grants for converting and improving buldings. It will apply to an old factory which is to be converted or improved for industrial use. The two subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) are alternatives and the amount of the grant is to be whichever is the lesser. I believe—and I had considerable support for this view in Committee—that £1,000 is too low to allow a job to be created and that the going rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, eloquently pointed out—and I have had further evidence of this since the last stage of the Bill—is a much higher sum that that. It costs between £3,000 and £5,000 to create a job. One-half of £3,000 would be approximately £1,500. To put into the Bill a sum that is already too low means that we would fail to have the jobs created or the old factories improved because the sums of money would never be sufficient to do it. This is a serious matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her reply and feel that there is here something worth doing to achieve an objective that we all wish to see achieved.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, most of what I intended to say is going over the same ground that I covered in Committee. Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not go over that again. I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that I have looked at this point again very carefully, because I was obviously struck by the comments made by other noble Lords in different parts of the House. However,
610
I think that there has been a certain amount of confusion. The figure has been carefully costed. I have had it checked again. That is the correct costing. There is power in the Bill already for the Secretary of State to increase the amount if it is shown to be necessary, but we must go on the figures at the present time, otherwise we should ourselves be helping along an inflationary situation.
Where I think there has been some misunderstanding is that the figure relates only to the cost of the building works. Therefore it cannot be directly compared with the figures often quoted in the context of regional policy for the cost of creating a job. This is what the figure in the Bill is concerned with. The Bill is only concerned with the cost of creating accommodation for a job. This is the difference. In speaking to one or two noble Lords, who are not unfortunately in the Chamber at the moment, I discovered that they had misinterpreted this provision. Let me say that there is no criticism. It is easy to misinterpret points in a Bill—in any piece of legislation.
This figure has been carefully costed. I have looked at it again because I was struck by the comments made by noble Lords. But if it is looked at in the context of the cost of creating accommodation for a job, then I think it falls much more into place. That fact, taken together with the power in the Bill—I have already pointed out that the Secretary of State has power to increase the amount—leads me to think that the amount should be left in the Bill as it is at the moment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful for that comment by the noble Baroness. It seems very strange that it was not made earlier on and that we have introduced a completely new fact into it. I think, in under the circumstances, and in view of the lateness of the hour, that I shall not press this Amendment, as I had originally intended to do. However, I will read carefully what the noble Baroness said. I give notice that if this is not a matter which I have fully understood or about which I am absolutely clear, I shall return to it on Third Reading. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.45 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause:
Grants to national voluntary bodies
(".The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants for assisting persons engaged in promoting or assisting schemes and research relating to, and dissemination of information in respect of, the enhancement of the physical environment and the promotion of employment in designated districts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this topic of central Government grants to national and regional voluntary bodies has arisen at both previous stages of the Bill and, in my view, very properly so, as we are all agreed that it is essential to find a formula which successfully harnesses to the full the voluntary effort and enterprise that the major national charities can guide and deploy through their local affiliates in the inner areas of our cities.
In the previous debate three main points emerged. First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, confirmed that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State had no lack of powers to grant-aid national and local voluntary bodies capable of contributing to environmental improvement. That was a useful reassurance. The second point that emerged was that in the last and the last but one financial year, although he had these powers, he made far less use of them to grant-aid national and regional voluntary bodies than, for instance, did the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. As between the last two years, when the Department of Health and Social Security increased their grants to national and local voluntary bodies to the extent of doubling them, the Secretary of State for the Department of the Enviornment virtually had no increase at all. That seems to us to be an extraordinary way of preparing and girding up the loins of the national voluntary bodies to play their full part in helping to solve the problems of the inner cities. The third point that emerged on the last occasion was that the noble Baroness said that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the National Council of Social Service were to meet the following week; and this they must have done. One object of the Amendment is to provide an oppor
612
tunity for the noble Baroness to give us the upshot of that meeting. That is one of the reasons why I have tabled this Amendment, although your Lordships will see that it is slightly revised and, I hope, improved.
We want to continue the debate for two further reasons: first, so that the noble Baroness may give us a fuller explanation of why her right honourable friend is not yet more strongly supporting the national and regional environmental bodies which need to act, and act urgently and skilfully, in the kind of way that my Amendments suggest, if the local voluntary bodies are to make their effective response in each local situation. I am sure she will see that it is not possible to do that unless some research and development work for this rather special kind of work in the inner cities is done for them at the centre.
My third reason for putting down the Amendment again is to secure that another place can debate the same point when the Amendment goes back to it, and to do so in the light of the more up-to-date information about the grant-aiding of voluntary bodies in the current financial year. This is now available. have a Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper, dated 22nd June, designed to elicit this information. I quite understand that the Department or the Home Office—if that is the Department which is collating it—have not been able to provide it in time for this debate. That would have been useful and valuable. However, it is much more important that another place debates the matter because it is more appropriate for it to debate financial matters. It was too early in the current financial year for the other place to do that when the Bill was before it, and the third aim of the Amendment is to enable it to do so now. I beg to move.
1.50 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, we have been over this ground before, and the rôle of the voluntary bodies was also discussed at considerable length when the Bill was considered in another place. I believe that the noble Lord accepts that we already have the ability to make the kind of grant provided for in the new clause, and to that extent

613
the clause is unnecessary, but I accept that he is using it as a means to have a brief discussion. Furthermore, as I am sure he is also aware, it is outside the scope of the Money Resolution on the Bill.
I immediately accept that national voluntary bodies can help in the development of local voluntary effort, certainly in environmental and economic improvement. Indeed, I believe that it is absolutely essential, both in funding and in participation, that voluntary bodies should be playing a consistently active part and that whatever State funding or organisation there is, it is essential for the wellbeing of the whole of our society that the voluntary movement should be playing an effective rôle.
As a footnote to that, I should say that to try to make too clear a distinction between grants given by various Departments—for instance, by the DHSS, the Home Office, or my own Department—can end up in a splitting of charitable hairs, which would be a great pity. The grants being given by the DHSS are helping people, and therefore are helping in a wider environmental sense. A similar position applies with grants given by other Departments. So I do not think that this always works out in quite a fair split. My Department already grants aid to a number of national bodies whose activities span the whole range of its environmental concerns. The noble Lord recently cited the figure of £650,000 for direct grants by the Department in 1976/77. That included grants totalling £250,000 to road safety organisations, but now these are the responsibility of the Department of Transport, and so there is a book-keeping transfer involved. If the remaining £400,000 is compared to present day grant total, it is clear that there has been a marked increase in the support being given to national voluntary bodies, and in the current financial year over £600,000 is being made available. The Keep Britain Tidy Group, which makes an enormous contribution to the entire environmental scene, alone has had its grant raised from £170,000 to £275,000. Furthermore, my Department has taken the initiative in the making of grants to bodies concerned with the problems of homelessness which involve a considerable amount of money.
614
In addition, more national and regional voluntary organisations are receiving financial help, and these include a number which co-ordinate or support local voluntary effort in the inner cities. In the present financial climate it is of course impossible to meet all the competing demands for Government funding. I have in mind the kind of demands which, if one went around the whole of this House, it would be found we are all making. I think it is evident that even with the constraint on resources, the Government are making a significant contribution to the work being done by the national voluntary bodies. However, we must bear in mind that the main thrust of the voluntary movement in tackling the problem in the inner cities is, in the Government's view, at the local level. It is there that the greatest impact must be made, and is being made, through the participation of voluntary bodies in the partnership and programme areas. In the recently announced allocation of resources to local authorities under the urban programme, 38 per cent. of the money was for 180 projects run by voluntary bodies which the local authorities wished to support; and the total estimated cost was about £3·8 million.
I shall personally continue to press for the fullest possible support for voluntary bodies in this field. The meeting which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had with the representatives of the National Council of Social Service provided a very useful exchange of views, not so much on the question of money, but on that of participation. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is probably aware, my right honourable friend has agreed to address the council's conference very shortly. This kind of face-to-face meeting and exchange of views between the voluntary organisation and the Department is important.
If I understood the noble Lord aright, he does not intend to press the Amendment at this stage. He wished to raise various points and, quite rightly, have on the record what he had to say, as well as the Government's attitude. In summing up I wish to say that the Government are fully aware of the invaluable work done by the voluntary bodies, and they will do all within their capacity not only to continue the funding, but to increase it

615
wherever possible. With this I include the work and the areas of participation undertaken by the local authorities, which I realise are not part of the Amendment but are closely connected with it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Baroness for that rather fuller statement about the policy and philosophy of herself and her right honourable friend on the voluntary bodies. We particularly welcome the agreement reached with the NCSS to-have a further meeting on 14th July. As we have every reason to expect a fairly full Answer to my Question for Written Answer on this matter, it would be better to await that before we pursue any of the points that the noble Baroness was making by way of justification of the lack of grant aid from her Department to voluntary bodies. We can return to that when we have the figures.
I was expecting not to have to press the Amendment, because I had been hoping that the noble Baroness would agree that if the other place are to debate it, it must of course be in the Bill. So for that reason I had hoped that she would accept it. The noble Baroness said that she doubted whether the Amendment fell within the Money Resolution. That is not for me or her to decide; it is a matter for another place. I have here a copy of the Money Resolution. It reads:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as respects inner urban areas in Great Britain in which there exists special social need and to amend Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums so ayable under any other Act".
An Amendment which begins:
"The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants…"
seems to me to fall entirely within the Money Resolution; but that is a matter for another place. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the Amendment for the reasons that I have indicated, which are primarily to secure a debate in another place.
Baroness BIRK: Is the noble Lord pressing the Amendment?
Lord SANDFORD: I hope that I do not have to press the Amendment; I am moving it. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it.
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; I am afraid that I will not accept the Amendment, for the reasons I gave. I hope that the noble Lord does not intend to press it, but if he does, I do not intend to put myself or my noble friends into a position in which we appear to be opposing the interests of the voluntary sector. Therefore if he wishes to divide the House, I shall abstain, and ask my noble friends, if they feel that way, to do the same thing.
Lord SANDFORD: Well, my Lords, that is a pity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 28 not moved.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think it might be as well if I moved that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich is in the House, and will be here within that time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
2.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): 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 Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to proceedings in Parliament
("3. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to a programme broadcast by the said Authority so far as the programme consists of proceedings in either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment, as your Lordships will see, deals with a simple point, and I am quite sure that it will not be necessary to detain the Committee very long on either this Amendment or, indeed, the other two Amendments standing in my name, because they deal with very simple and direct points. I have tabled them separately in order to allow the maximum degree of maneouvrability, both to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and to myself and those who support me in these matters, so that the noble Lord may accept one of them, two of them, or three, or indeed none, and we, on the other hand, may decide to press one, two, three, or indeed none, as circumstances dictate.
Coming to the first of these Amendments, it consists of adding to the Bill a new clause in the words on the Marshalled List, and those words are in point of fact precisely the words of a clause which was formerly in this Bill when it went to Committee in another place. I have tabled it in the same words, which appear to be somewhat tortuous. Indeed, I have done that just in case the noble Lord should say that he agreed with the point but there was something defective in the wording; and it seemed to me that, since the
618
wording had been devised by those who advise the noble Lord, it was unlikely that they would come along and tell me that the wording was in fact defective. It is precisely the same wording as existed in the original Bill, when the Bill went to Committee in another place.
At that time that clause was removed from the Bill. I think it is only fair to say that it was not removed from the Bill as a result of a concerted action by one particular Party, as was perhaps partly suggested by the noble Lord at Second Reading. It was in fact removed because Members from all Parties felt, not that they did not agree with that particular clause, but that it did not go far enough. Amendments could not be put then because under the Rules of Order in another place they were not covered by the Long Title of the Bill as it then was, and the clause was removed in the hope that your Lordships, either in Committee or elsewhere, might be able to devise something more comprehensive. As a first gesture I seek merely to restore that clause to the Bill. It would be appropriate if I were to remind your Lordships that this deals with Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act, which your Lordships will recollect requires the Independent Broadcasting Authority to secure the exclusion from its programmes of contributions on matters of political or industrial controversy or appertaining to public policy by any one of a whole list of prescribed persons. These are, in fact, members of the IBA, directors of the contracting radio or television companies and other members and indeed employees of either the Authority or the independent companies.
One consequence of this—and I think it is generally acknowledged—is that Section 4(2) of the original Broadcasting Act has a number of serious defects. I am aware that evidence was given on this point to the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and recommendations were made for considerable changes in the original Act with regard to the operation of Section 4(2). I am aware that the Government intend in due course to produce a White Paper dealing with various matters arising from the Annan Committee and, no doubt, dealing with this particular point; and, of course, it will be some time before those matters emerge. However, there are certain

619
urgent matters with which we are already faced. With one of those urgent matters, this clause in the original Bill dealt effectively. The effect of Section 4(2) was that whenever certain noble Lords in this House or in this Committee or whenever certain Members of the other place, who happened to be either members of the Authority or otherwise prescribed persons on that list of persons whose contributions had to be excluded, were speaking in either House of Parliament that meant that the Independent Broadcasting Authority was immediately in breach of the Act if it allowed the broadcasting of the proceedings of whichever House of Parliament it was to continue. That was something which had to be sorted out in order to do away with a real difficulty.
This simple clause, in precisely the form in which it appeared in the original Bill, does exactly that. It states merely that the application of Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of either House of Parliament. Unless we do that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is in an awful muddle whenever the proceedings of either House are being broadcast because there are many people who may be speaking at any time, and it is obvious that they will be speaking on matters of either political or industrial controversy or, at least, on matters appertaining to public policy. We have, therefore, a kind of nonsense which should not be allowed to continue. Here we have a simple restoration of a clause in the original Bill. With those words, I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Lord REDESDALE: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for putting his case so clearly on this Amendment. From these Benches I should just like to say that we support him, although I accept that the noble Lord the Minister will want to consider the matter further at a later stage and might want to expand it. Therefore, I should only like to go so far as saying that we support the concept of this Amendment as it appears to be a very logical and straightforward way of rationalising the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has afforded
620
us in this Amendment the opportunity to consider the clause which, as I pointed out during our debate in Second Reading, was rejected in Committee in another place. I do not want to go over the ground again as to why that happened. The noble Lord may recall that the point I made about why that clause was rejected and by whom it was rejected, was made following a speech made by the Opposition Front Bench on that occasion. Nevertheless, I welcome what the noble Lord has just said.
The clause, which would have implemented a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting in their Second Report, was rejected in another place not, I think, because of any basic opposition to the relaxation it proposed to Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation to Parliamentary broadcasting, but because a number of honourable members wished to prod the Government into making a more substantial Amendment to Section 4(2). I must make it clear, as I did on Second Reading, that the Government would find it impossible to deal within the compass of this Bill, with the whole question of the future of Section 4(2). This provision raises issues which go to the heart of our concept of public service broadcasting, and we wish to deal with them in our forthcoming White Paper. It will be appropriate to deal with that in that way because it raises substantial questions of public policy. I do not think, for the reasons which I have indicated, that it would be right to deal with it in this Bill because we come in this and other Amendments to rather narrower matters. I shall deal with those when the noble Lord proposes his Amendments.
We have all along regarded the clause, which the noble Lord is seeking to reinstate in the Bill, as a matter pre-eminently for Parliament. It was for this reason that we did not think it appropriate to seek to move on Report in another place or today an Amendment to reverse the decision taken in Committee in another place. That said, we did, of course, consider that the clause to exclude Section 4(2) and (5) of the 1973 Act in relation to Parliamentary broadcasting was a sensible measure. If it is the committee's wish that this clause should be reinstated in the Bill, it ought properly

621
to come before, and not after, the clause dealing with the short title and extent of the Bill. I should be pleased therefore to move an Amendment on Report, if the Committee so wishes, which puts the clause back in what I think is the more appropriate place in the Bill. Given this undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will withdraw his Amendment and I will so what I have suggested on Report.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support. What the noble Lord has just said shows that one can never count on anything going entirely smoothly. Having set down the Amendment in precisely the words which the Government used before, I thought everything would be plain sailing. But I now find that I have not put it in the right place. I fully accept that. On the assurance given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.18 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to proceedings of District or County Councils
"4. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of District or County Councils.".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment consists of a new clause to he added to the Bill at an appropriate place. It deals with an extremely simple point. If it is proper and appropriate to say that Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, it is surely logical that we should also say that nor should Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act apply to broadcasts of
622
the proceedings of local authorities. Precisely the same point and the same difficulty have arisen.
For example, the Leader of the Conservative Party in the Manchester City Council is Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw. Very frequently the proceedings of the council have been broadcast live by independent radio. BBC radio can do as they wish: Section 4(2) does not apply to them; it applies merely to independent programmes. The proceedings of that city council have been broadcast live and that means that if Dame Kathleen happened to be speaking then immediately once again the Independent Broadcasting Authority would be in breach of the law. There has been a case in which the Lord Mayor of a city was in fact a proscribed person because he was a director of a broadcasting company and it would have meant that whenever his city council was sitting, if the Lord Mayor had presumed to intervene in the proceedings for a moment, once again the Independent Broadcasting Authority would have been in breach of the law. It seems to me that this is a very simple matter and I would ask the Government to address their minds to it. It is something which surely could be done very simply, without prejudice to what is done in the future.
With regard to Section 4(2) as a whole, if it is appropriate that we should say that Section 4(2) shall not apply to broadcasts of proceedings of Parliament, then it seems to me that it is sensible and logical to say that it shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This Amendment raises the question of whether we should exclude Sections 4(2) and 4(5) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation not only to the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings but also to the broadcasting of local government proceedings. If I may make this point—it is a fairly self-evident one —of course any existing member of a local authority, and any person who stands for election to a local authority, knows when he stands for election that any broadcasting of his remarks or of any speech he may make is in fact excluded, and has been excluded since the passage of the Independent Broadcasting Authority

623
Act. It does not therefore come as a tremendous surprise if any statement he might make in a broadcast of proceedings of a local authority meeting were to be excluded.
Certainly I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord and I appreciate that there are a number of proceedings, including the proceedings of the Greater London Council, which have been broadcast by independent radio stations. But I am afraid that there are two problems over this particular Amendment. One is that in fact the objective which the noble Lord seeks would not be secured by this Amendment, because it deals only with district and county councils. There are a large number of other local authority organisations which would be excluded from his Amendment. There are parish councils and the Greater London Council, which, as I am advised, would not be covered by this; and of course there are the London Borough Councils. In Scotland there are Regional and Island Areas as well as district councils, and there are in addition community councils. In the case of Wales, there are also Welsh community councils, but they are not exactly the same as community councils in Scotland.
I would say to the noble Lord that I will gladly look at this matter between now and the Report stage. I think we would have to consult the local authority associations about this because it affects them very substantially. Subject to that, I could not at the moment give an absolute firm and cast-iron commitment; but I will undertake to consult the local authority associations between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I be allowed to detain your Lordships for some 30 seconds. What worries me about this Bill is that the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is moving sound eminently reasonable and, at first sight, one would automatically support them. What I should like the Minister to address his mind to is one simple point. I shall put it very simply and then sit down, leaving it to him at a later stage to refer to it again. Could this be a back-door method of widening the privilege of the broadcasting authorities in their broadcasting of proceedings in
624
this House or the proceedings of local authorities or associated bodies? It seems to me that these areas—if Amendments such as this were not enacted—would be subject to what action an individual may take to seek redress through the courts. In this matter I do not have the Independent Broadcasting Authority in mind, but I do have very much in mind the BBC. I am extremely worried about the growth of the influence of the BBC, which seems to imagine that its powers are derived from Heaven when it comes to conflict with the rights of individuals. I am an opponent of the extension of the privileges of the BBC, even if it is done by what I regard as the apparently innocuous and commendable Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has brought to your Lordships' attention.
Lord REDESDALE: As I understand it—and I am sure that the noble Lord will clarify this point—this Amendment does not affect the BBC in any way. There is a precedent involved. It is not a question of the BBC's rights being increased in any way. It is merely a question of being logical. If the BBC can do it, then the IBA can do it as well. I should have thought that that was logical, and that it was not too hard to make the wording cover all the various councils that exist. It is a fairly rational amendment to bring the IBA into line with the BBC.
Lord WIGG: I entirely agree that it is absolutely rational, and it has my support. I am not so confused as to imagine that this, in itself, affects the BBC. But what I am interested in in politics is not what people do openly; in other words, I am a disciple of Napoleon, and I am always worried about what comes in on the flank, such as the little gentle zephyr today which is quoted as a precedent tomorrow. As I said, this has my support and it is utterly reasonable, but it appears to me to extend the privileges of a broadcasting authority.
First, there was Parliament, and now it is local authorities. That worries me, because, before we know where we are, this extension will add more powers to the BBC, which does not obtain its powers from Parliament; it obtains them from God. Therefore it is above criticism from such mortals as myself. That is why I

625
watch very closely, and I shall continue to watch, proposals of this kind. I should have thought I would have carried noble Lords opposite with me on increasing the power of statutory authorities in relation to the individual. I am a disciple of Josiah Wedgewood and say "Forever freedom", but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which is what brings me here this afternoon.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Wigg here this afternoon. If I may deal, first, with the question of the BBC and then go on to one or two other matters which have arisen, the BBC is required by ministerial prescription, under Clause 13(4) of its Licence and Agreement —because as my noble friend will be aware, there is no comparable legislation so far as the BBC is concerned; it is dealt with by the Licence and Agreement—
"To refrain at all times from sending any broadcast matter in the following classes".
Then the subsection (a) follows:
"matter expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or on matters of public policy".
That is the position so far as the BBC is concerned.
Certainly, this could be interpreted, in certain circumstances, as requiring the BBC not to broadcast a Parliamentary speech by a Member of another place, or by a Member of this House, referring to the Corporation's opinions on any of these matters. The intention is to remove Parliamentary broadcasting by the BBC from the scope of this prescription, just as Clause 2 of the Bill removes Parliamentary broadcasting by the IBA from the scope of Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act. This can be done by appropriate formal correspondence, as and when Parliament approves the amendment of Section 4(2). It is a fairly narrow point. It does not, in my view, give an enormous increase of powers, so far as the BBC is concerned. I do not think there is any weight in that point.
So far as Section 4(2) is concerned, the position is that it prevents the Independent Broadcasting Authority from broadcasting the views of, among others, the directors of an independent television company, or an independent radio company, on
626
"matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".
The question which is raised in this Amendment is, what happens if the director of an independent radio company or independent television company is also a member of a local authority whose debate is then broadcast, be it the Greater London Council, or the Greater Manchester Council, and so on?
When Parliament decided upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, it introduced a blanket prohibition, and that is the existing situation. So far as the Bill is concerned, we are relieving Members of either place from this proscription. We are saying that in the case of a Member of another place or a Member of this House—this is the matter which we discussed on the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley —this particular problem would be removed and that the Independent Broadcasting Authority would be entitled to broadcast a speech made in either House by the Director of a television company or of an independent radio company. As I have indicated, that would be the effect of the first Amendment. The effect of this Amendment is to relieve a member of a local authority in exactly the same way.
What I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is that I think that there must be a pause for reflection. On a matter of this kind, it is clearly important to consult the local authority associations. It seems to me to be quite inappropriate to pass an Amendment of this character—affecting, as it would, existing members of local authorities—without giving to local authority associations an opportunity to make their comments upon it. Subject to that, we shall, as I have indicated, look at the matter, I hope at Report stage although it might conceivably be at Third Reading. However, I have given that undertaking and I hope that it will satisfy both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
2.32 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have advised the Committee on this little point. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for his qualified support, if I may so call it, although I

627
congratulate him upon his vigilance and caution with regard to the extension of the powers of any non-elected body in any field whatsoever. However, I assure him that I have no such Machiavellian intention. My intention is merely to sort out what seems to me to be a minor administrative muddle whereby at the moment the Independent Broadcasting Authority is entirely free to broadcast the proceedings of a local authority, save it if happens that one of the people speaking turns out to be one of the proscribed people. Then they are in a muddle and in breach of the law. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that it is a simple point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for assuring the Committee that he will address his mind to the point and for accepting that it is one of some consequence and possibly could be of some urgency both to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to some of the local authorities and members of local authorities who are caught up by this provision. On the understanding that the noble Lord will look further into the matter and come back to it at Report or at some other stage of the Bill, and while reserving my own right to raise the issue again at a later stage if the product of the noble Lords thoughts have not been entirely satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WIGG: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, does not have my qualified support. He has my unqualified support. I am not questioning either his motive or the efficacy of the methods he has employed. I am not even saying that I want the Minister to have a formal inquiry into the matter. Let me explain what I do mean. I am suspicious of Liberal zephyrs. I do not say that because the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, sits on the Liberal Benches, although that does not relieve me of my suspicions. In fact, I am suspicious of those whose bleeding hearts run away with their bloody heads. It is that which worries me.
I accept the motives behind the Amendment. I am quite sure that the Minister will look at the matter and that the answer from his point of view will be absolutely all right. What I am concerned about is
628
that this Liberal approach should not subsequently be exploited by Big Brother. That is what I am saying. The Minister ought to bear in mind what Big Brother can get up to, and has got up to, and its power at the moment—which I do not regard as wholly beneficent. It was for that reason that I raised my point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.35 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to broadcasts made in connection with a Parliamentary election
("5. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to broadcasts made by or on behalf of candidates in connection with a Parliamentary election.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also consists of a new clause to be added to the Bill in the words appearing on the Marshalled List. This deals with a similar but marginally different point, although to my mind perhaps an even more urgent one. As I said earlier, we have received an assurance that the Government will be looking further at the recommendations of the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan; will be producing a White Paper, and may well be producing legislation which will deal comprehensively with Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act. But before that time comes to pass it seems likely that we shall have a General Election. I cannot say exactly when although I could perhaps hazard a guess, but I think it will be before we receive the White Paper and certainly before we see the legislation.
When that General Election takes place there will immediately be a very serious difficulty with which the Independent Broadcasting Authority will have to contend. Indeed it is a difficulty with which the Authority has already had to

629
contend and about which, if I may say so, it has perhaps already made certain errors. The situation is that there is no doubt at all that many of the candidates in the next Parliamentary Election, in all Parties—and I have in mind five Parties—will in fact be proscribed people under this Section. They will be either members of the Authority or employees or directors of contracting companies. That means that if in the course of the General Election their words are to be broadcast on Independent Television or Independent radio—and I imagine that they will again be expressing views on matters appertaining to public policy—the Independent Broadcasting Authority will be in breach of the Act.
That occurred recently in the by-election at Grimsby when the Labour candidate—now the Labour Member—for that seat, Mr. Austin Mitchell, was in fact an unpaid director of Pennine Radio. The fact remains that he is a proscribed person. Either the Independent Broadcasting Authority did not notice, or it chose not to notice, and it did in fact broadcast his speeches in that by-election. But had it implemented the Act rigidly and said, "No, he cannot appear and we cannot broadcast his words" then in order to comply with the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act they would also have had to ensure that none of the other candidates could have broadcast either. That would have meant that that election could not have been covered at all on either Independent Television or Independent radio although it could of course have been covered—as indeed it was—very fully by BBC Radio and BBC Television.
That type of situation which was then marginal in one by-election will be reproduced over and over again in the coming General Election. The Authority will immediately be in difficulty with regard to the fulfilment of its various responsibilities, under the Independent Broadcasting Act and under the Representation of the Peoples Act, unless we say, as I propose in my new clause, that this section shall not apply to broadcasts made by or on behalf of candidates in a Parliamentary Election. I add the words "or on behalf of candidates" because there are other people in the political Parties of influence who may perhaps be running the Parties'
630
Press conferences or may be chairing meetings and who are also proscribed persons but whose contribution during the election campaign will be fully and adequately covered by the BBC, while under the terms of Section 4(2) it could not be covered at all on Independent Television or Independent radio. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I fear that I must approach this Amendment with rather more caution than either of the other two, and at the moment I am not persuaded that an Amendment on the lines proposed would in fact be an improvement to the Bill. I will begin by defining the area of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. If it is argued, as indeed it is argued by him, that Section 4(2) is inherently unsatisfactory, as he has pointed out this is a matter which has been dealt with in evidence to the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. But, of course, it raises some very substantial questions. After all, it was the clear intention of Parliament that there should be certain rules applying to people who are directors of independent television or radio companies.
The view was that it was important—and I can say this only as an assumption: this legislation was put forward by the Party opposite when in office— to ensure that a director of an independent television, or independent radio, company did not misuse his power by ensuring that he had some very agreeable relations with the management of that company, and that by reason of his directorship one found that there was a very remarkable number of broadcasts emanating from the same individual, using his position as a director of that company to ensure that he got a great deal of attention, be it on television or radio. That was clearly the intention of Parliament. Undoubtedly, a number of significant problems have arisen as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is quite right. There was the case of Mr. Kerry Packer, who I believe has a relationship with Trident Television, and who a few months ago was a figure of some controversy. Cases of that kind do undoubtedly raise quite significant problems, both to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and indeed to the general public interest.

631
I think that matters as wide and significant as this will have to be dealt with in substantive legislation. The question really is whether we try to do it in this Bill. I would say to the noble Lord that I do slightly hesitate about his use of the phrase, "this is an urgent point". It has been urgent as long as this legislation has been on the Statute Book. It was, as I have indicated, the clear intention of Parliament that this should be on the Statute Book. The noble Lord deals with the position of a person who is a candidate for Parliament. But what about the person who is a candidate for a local authority? Independent radio stations do cover local authority elections in exactly the same way as Parliamentary elections. That is one point which, of course, would not be covered by the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Then we come to the person who is not a candidate but is speaking on behalf of a candidate. That is much wider than the point of the Grimsby by-election, if I may say so, much wider. When, after all, does an election begin? Does it begin when the election is announced. What happens if a person says, "I am speaking on behalf of somebody or other who is now the prospective candidate for this particular constituency", someone who had been adopted six months after a General Election for what will manifestly be a five-year Parliament?
For these reasons, I believe that this particular matter would be far more appropriately dealt with in the legislation which will undoubtedly follow the publication of the Government's White Paper on Annan. I recognise that there is a definite sense of unease as far as Independent television and independent radio are concerned about the particular way in which the present legislative framework bites upon them. That is absolutely true. I have had the matter drawn very forcibly to my attention by a very large number of people; I am well aware of the anxieties which have been expressed and there is undoubtedly some justification for some of these anxieties. But this matter can be more appropriately dealt with in substantive legislation. I do not believe that the Amendment we have before us would improve the Bill. It raises some very substantial questions which go a great
632
deal wider than simply a particular Parliamentary by-election, or even a particular General Election. I do not think it is appropriate to deal with this particular complex difficult matter in this particular fashion. For that reason I am afraid at the moment we are not persuaded that this Amendment would improve the Bill.
Lord REDESDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made his case very clearly and we are all extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining the problems that exist. Although we on these Benches sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in his concept of trying to rationalise the situation and can see that there are a number of problems which require greater definition, I think we must accept the point that this legislation has been around for some time and just because the Bill is now coming forward it does not really have to be dealt with at this time, and perhaps it might be appropriate to look at the matter when the whole of the situation has to be gone into in greater detail at a later date. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said and I can see an enormous number of difficulties, but although I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I do not think that he would expect us to go through the Lobby with him.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what he has said on this particular matter. I must say at once that I am entirely at one with him in saying that it would be more appropriate for this and other matters relating to Section 4(2) to be dealt with in the legislation which follows the White Paper arising from the report of the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan. However, at the same time, the Minister will agree with me that that legislation will not appear before the forthcoming General Election. My anxiety was to see, if possible, that something was done to mitigate the difficulties which will be encountered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, candidates, political Parties and political agents when that election comes to pass.
However, I accept that this is a complex matter and that is it not quite as specific and narrow as the other matters with which we have already dealt. Nevertheless

633
I am encouraged by the realisation that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, accepts that there is a very real problem which will certainly have to be tackled sooner or later. I shall consider very carefully what the noble Lord has said—I shall have an opportunity to read and consider it further—and I shall discuss what he has said with noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House who takes the same view as I do and feel that something should be done. Having had those consultations and considerations I shall then decide at a later stage whether or not to try to proceed further. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.