Lords Sitting of 2 April 1979

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

MR. AIREY NEAVE: TRIBUTES
2.36 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, it is right that before we begin today's business we should pause to pay tribute to Airey Neave. He was a great Englishman and a man of many talents as a writer, lawyer and distinguished Member of Parliament. We first became friends at Nuremburg in 1945 and it is not long since he invited me to the launching of his last book, his personal record of the trials of the major Nazi war criminals. Lord Justice Lawrence, who presided over the trials, and his colleague Mr. Justice Birkett, told me more than once of the great help that Airey had given to the tribunal and of his many qualities.
At the end of his book he wrote:
"It will be many years before we can afford to forget the Nazis. Before our eyes, the problems of race and terrorism are a frightening reminder of Hitler's example. He lived by terror and his methods appeal today to the young and rootless all over the world. Those who use terror to gain their political ends are the heirs of his revolution of destruction, however much they may claim to represent opposing doctrines. The whole experience had a deep influence on my future life".
I believe it coloured his attitude to terrorism in Northern Ireland and indeed anywhere else where it was used and made him its determined and uncompromising opponent.
The kindest of men, his own courage knew no limits. Holder of the DSO, MC and Croix de Guerre, he escaped from Colditz after being wounded and made a prisoner of war in 1940. He then masterminded the escape of many allied pilots and prisoners of war behind enemy lines. He enriched our country in many ways by his talent as an author and parliamentarian and by the wide range of his public
1694
service. It is not only his own party that has suffered a grievous loss by his death; his death diminishes all of us. We think above all at this time of his equally brave wife and their family, to whom the House will wish to extend its deepest sympathy.
The bomb which killed Airey Neave in New Palace Yard was a threat to Parliament itself; it was no accident that it happened within the precincts of Parliament. But, so far from weakening the determination of Parliament, the Government and the public to resist the terrorists and their aim to achieve political ends by bomb and gun, it will strengthen our resolve. That I believe is what Airey Neave would have wished.
2.39 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is proper and fitting that we should on this occasion depart from precedent and custom in order to pay our tribute to the life and work of a Member of another place whose untimely and indeed unworthy death last Friday has affronted the conscience of the nation. Political assassination—for that is what Mr. Neave's death was—is not part of the currency of British politics. Nor does it either historically or emotionally form part of the make-up or character of the British people. Its impact when it occurs is therefore all the more startling. It is nothing short of a tragedy that one such public-spirited person as Mr. Neave should have been removed from us in this fashion. His only claim to be such a target was his endeavour to do his best, along with all the others who are doing their best, to find a solution to the desperate problems of Northern Ireland. He had not even put those thoughts into practice; his was not the responsibility to do so. But for his enemies, the thoughts were enough.
So, from the counsels of the country, goes one of the kindest and most dedicate people. Courteous, gentle, charming, almost shy, Airey Neave's façade masked a brilliant and meticulous mind, one which guided him through the war with such distinction and which enabled him to escape from the unescapable, and, having been caught, to escape again; one which enabled him to prosecute at the Nuremburg trials; and one which enabled him

1695
to become an author of no mean repute. It was that same mind which was turned to politics and, more latterly, was channelled towards the intricate complexities of Northern Ireland. It was not only intellectual ability which Airey Neave brought to enrich the political scene but also that wonderful gift of being able to talk, to understand, to listen to another's view-point, to find a way round, but yet never to compromise on belief or integrity.
Friendship, even to those of opposing views, was natural to him, as was public life. In the same way that he had contributed to his country during the war, so did he seek to do in a different capacity in times of so-called peace. There is a certain irony in the fact that it was not war, when the gun and the bullet are legitimate terms of trade, which ended Airey Neave's life: it was in a time of peace, when he earnestly sought to do nothing other than to contribute to peace and when he was unarmed, unprotected and alone, in the sanctity of the Houses of Parliament, that he met his death by the premeditated arrangement of others.
If there is one thing which has numbed the comprehension of the ordinary person even more than the sorrowful act itself, it is the mentality of those who, as if with pride, claim the responsibility for what has happened. His loss will be felt as much in the province as it will be in the mainland of the United Kingdom.
But, my Lords, in the middle of grief it is not wrong to see whether good can come out of evil, and Mr. Neave would have been the first to wish this. As terrorism stalks its evil path across the countries of the world, it is inevitable that this country will not be immune, nor has it been. There is no extra value of itself placed upon the life of a politician over and above that of a soldier, policeman, or civilian, many of whom have lost their lives, some doing their duty, some in total innocence. The significance of Mr. Neave's death as a politician, and in the heart of this democratic Parliament building, is that it has demonstrated with pristine clarity that there are those not only outside this country but also within it who are prepared to use not just fear but even death to attack the right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
1696
That freedom is so fundamental that we all take it for granted, and if Mr. Neave's death has shone a beacon onto that fact it will not have been in vain. At a time when, frankly, the currency of politicians regrettably does not stand very high in the mind of the public, it may be not inappropriate to be reminded that those who, whatever their political views, go as representatives of their people to the House of Commons to give of their best to the solution of the problems of their day, do so at some personal risk to themselves. To serve one's country, whether in war or in peace, is not a platitude; it is an honour—and it sometimes demands the highest price. It did in Airey Neave's case.
If, as a consequence, the standing of politicians in the eyes of the public moves just a little up the scale, his death will not have been wholly in vain. In whatever part of the House we may sit, in whichever Chamber of Parliament we may sit, we are collectively at one in realising that we have lost a friend. We have lost a colleague. We have lost a good public servant, and we have witnessed an assault on parliamentary democracy. We extend our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Neave and to her family in the considerable sorrow and anguish which they must be enduring and which, in some small measure, we also have the privilege to share.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to be associated with the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Airey Neave by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We were deeply shocked to hear the news of his death and to learn of its tragic nature. I heard the news at the KÖnigswinter Conference in Germany, and we British immediately received the deep and understanding sympathy of our German hosts. In what has already been said this afternoon it has been made very clear that Airey Neave was a brave man and a conscientious servant to our democratic system. We on these Benches join in the expression of sympathy to his family, and we join also in the general determination to make it clear that terrorism does not alter policies in a democracy.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, from the Cross-Benches, may I, as one

1697
who served for a quarter of a century with Airey Neave in the other place, join in the tributes being paid to a brave and distinguished British soldier, a fearless but gentle parliamentarian, and a close personal friend. Britain is poorer for his tragic death, but it is richer for his noble life and service. No man of this age ever served his country with greater fortitude and determination than he did. We may say of him, as of Shakespeare's Brutus,
"His life was gentle, and the elements So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world 'This was a man!'"
I join with your Lordships in offering profound sympathy to his dear wife and children in the tragic loss of one who had yet so much to give his country, but who died last Friday because of his very virtues.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I wish to add my voice—an Irish voice—to that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and other noble Lords, in expressing both the utmost tribute to Mr. Airey Neave and the utmost revulsion at this heinous crime. All sections of the Northern Ireland community and the communities of the Irish Republic join in utterly condemning this horrible murder. This mindless act does nothing to resolve the problems of Ireland, but gives rise to much unnecessary suffering, hardship, sadness and grief. Our prayers and our heartfelt sympathy are with Mrs. Neave and her family at this particular time.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted, as an Irish citizen, to add to what my noble friend has just said by expressing the deep shock, shame and sorrow that we felt throughout the Republic of Ireland, as in the North, at this foul murder.

QUANGOS: NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS
2.51 p.m.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons nominated by them
1698
are paid to serve on more than one quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation and what is the maximum number of QUANGOs on which any one person may serve.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, the White Paper on Public Boards of a Commercial Character, published in December 1978 as Cmnd. 7417, contains a list of 24 people holding more than one appointment to these bodies. I regret that information on people holding more than one appointment to other bodies is not readily available, and could be provided only at considerable and disproportionate cost. There is no stipulated maximum number of appointments which may be held by any one person, but Ministers of course try to ensure that those they appoint have sufficient time for the work to be done.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he could tell the House what is the total cost, including the administration, housing, fees, salaries and disbursements, for QUANGOs?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid that to give as much detail as that would really be too costly. We had a very full debate on this subject some time ago, as the noble Earl will know, and this matter was also raised then.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite the possible cost, this is information that the Government ought to know, and that it is worth the trouble of their finding out exactly how many of these positions exist and how many people hold more than one position? Is the noble Lord aware that the answer that it would cost money to obtain this information in no way diminishes the importance of getting it?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that may well be, but, after all, we are always told that we must think in terms of costs, and each Department has instructions to keep within certain limits. The noble Lord is a very experienced parliamentarian and he knows full well that that answer would have been given even by a Conservative Minister.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether or not it is true that there are several thousand of these bodies?
Lord PEART: My Lords, there is a considerable number, and we have debated this fully. I could go through a lot of names. Indeed, I was responsible for some QUANGOs, although I never sought to have political appointments made. I never regard them as political issues. There is the Milk Marketing Board, the Meat and Livestock Commission, and so on. I could go through a whole field of QUANGOs which came within my former departmental responsibility. Conservative Ministers did exactly the same as I did, as they were wise to do.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are we not hoping that under a new Administration there will be some reform? But, when the noble Lord answers that there is a considerable number, could he not say whether it is true that there are something like 3,000 of these bodies?
Lord PEART: That is not far off, I would say, my Lords. If the noble Earl wants me to find the exact number for him, I will do so, but I do not think it would be fruitful.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Philip Holland, Member of Parliament, has today published a report which shows that there are 9,634 paid QUANGOs and 30,890 unpaid QUANGOs? If he can come to these results, surely the noble Lord could do a little homework and discover how many QUANGOs there are, how many are paid and what is the total cost to the nation? Furthermore, could the noble Lord explain why it is that these bodies have been breeding like rabbits in recent years?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that is a crude term to use. I think the number of QUANGOs will certainly be looked at carefully by any Government, but any Government will have to use this sort of organisation to fulfil responsibilities in a Department. Let us not forget that on these QUANGOs or boards many good, public-spirited people from all sections of our country, of all party persuasions,
1700
perform a useful service to the community.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I have been a member of some of these QUANGOS, and my own experience is that it cost me money to be so. I think it is unfortunate that many thousands of people—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER HILL: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that many thousands of people have given a great deal of public service on what are now called QUANGOS, and that the name itself is bringing what they have done into disrepute.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. He knows from his long experience in the field of education that bodies of this kind provide a very fine service to the community.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would avoid any criticism in your Lordships' House if we knew how many Members of your Lordships' House have more than one of these appointments?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know that noble Lords on both sides have served on bodies of this kind. I am afraid I cannot give that information. I will try to get it, but I will find it extremely difficult.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of the number of QUANGOs and the reference to their breeding habits, may I ask the noble Lord whether a sufficient number of women are appointed thereto?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think there are enough. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wants to be on a QUANGO, but I would have thought that lady members of her quality would be needed. I think we should have more lady members, and the Government are aware of that.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, now that these bodies are popping up all over the place, would it not save time if we had some generate name for the occupants

1701
of these positions? Might we not call them something like "Quangaroos"?
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that these bodies have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished?
Lord PEART: My Lords I do not take that view at all. In a speech I outlined many of them in different fields of activity. They fulfil a very important function in administration, and they are responsible to major Departments. I think noble Lords will appreciate that even under a Conservative regime they existed, and did so in considerable numbers.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that this system provides an avenue for public service which would otherwise have to be occupied by bureaucrats, civil servants and local government officials? Is it not a fact that there is much to be said in praise of QUANGOs; and is my noble friend aware that, if he has similar appointments to make in the early future, my name and my admirable qualifications are at his disposal?

ROYAL LONDON HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITAL
2.58 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what changes are proposed regarding the continuance of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital and its postgraduate training and teaching facilities under the National Health Service.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, an assurance was given in 1976 that there was no question of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital being required to leave its present site against the wishes of the staff and others closely interested in its future. There is no question of the present Government con-
1702
sidering its closure. Any proposals for the future of the hospital will be considered only in the light of these commitments. Post-graduate training and teaching is the responsibility of the Faculty of Homoeopathy, and not of the National Health Service.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I have his assurance that if there is need to move the hospital to some other site the facilities, both for doctors and for patients, will still be available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know it is the intention of my right honourable friend to maintain this particular contribution provided by the Faculty of Homoeopathy as long as it is needed by people using the National Health Service.

MRS AILEEN MORGAN
2.59 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why Mrs. Aileen Morgan, a 61-year-old who needs medical attention, has been detained in Holloway Prison without charge since 1st February.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Mrs. Morgan was detained on 1st February on the authority of a deportation order pending arrangements for her return to Guyana. The reason why she has not yet been removed is that her solicitors have lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision to deport her. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not prepared to agree that she should be released in the meantime. She had disregarded the immigration control for a number of years before she was traced. The prison medical officer reports that she is in general good health.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that this lady has now been confirmed as suffering from tuberculosis and that she actually needs inpatient treatment in a hospital? Is he

1703
also aware that when a number of Members of the other place went to Mr. Brynmor John in July, 1978, he said that the provisions of the Bail Act would normally be considered in relation to administrative detention just as in the case of a decision by the courts to release a person? Is the noble Lord now telling the House that in no case where a person has overstayed leave to remain here will the Secretary of State agree to release him temporarily pending appeal? If that is the case, would there be some method by which the noble Lord could secure an accelerated hearing by which people who are ill with tuberculosis do not languish in prison for months on end?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, obviously, the matter regarding the lady suffering from tuberclosis is one that I shall have to take up with my right honourable friend. I had no knowledge of that; and I was dealing with the matter as recently as today. There were four occasions on which she was seen by the medical officer: on 5th February, on 6th March, on 13th March and on 19th March. The earlier visits to the doctor were about her trouble in sleeping. Subsequently, she complained about pain in the chest and, on the last occasion, she had an X-ray and they told her the results of that X-ray. The noble Lord's news is certainly a surprise. It is a matter that I cannot comment upon and one which I shall have to inquire into.
That Mrs. Morgan is being detained is not an indication that everybody else will be treated in a similar way. She came to this country with her daughter on 5th August 1972, and was given leave to remain until 15th September. She did not leave the country and it was some years before she was found. She then made an application to remain, which was refused in May 1975. Then she disappeared and has only recently been found. The deportation order signed in 1977 is about to be put into operation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is necessary to keep this woman in prison? Is there not another institution in which she might be kept if detention is still necessary?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did say that my right honourable friend
1704
the Secretary of State is loth to release her to any other body or organisation. The medical facilities at Holloway Prison are extremely good. Immediately she complained she was seen. I cannot either confirm or deny what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, what I have told you about her state of health is true. It is impossible to suppose that the lady might abscond if given temporary release. Would the noble Lord deal with the point that I made about the undertaking given by his right honourable friend Mr. Brynmor John when he saw a delegation of Members of another place at the end of July 1978, when he said that the provisions of the Bail Act would be taken into consideration in deciding whether to release a person detained on the instructions of the Secretary of State, in precisely the same way as they would in a case of a court of law considering the release of such a person?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I thought that it was implied in what I said that every possible consideration has been given as to how this lady should be treated; and, rightly or wrongly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State says that she must remain in custody.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, could the Minister tell us whether there is any reason why this lady should not receive at least as good treatment for her illness while in prison as if she were allowed to leave prison?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the situation in Holloway Prison, there is no difference at all.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, if there is, indeed, any evidence of tuberculosis in this case, would it not be possible for my noble friend to arrange for a visit to take place by a consultant in tuberculosis, even while this patient is in hospital, to confirm whether she is suffering from this disease?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall be glad to convey the remarks of my noble friend to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I apologise for speaking again, but I did ask whether there was any way in which his right honourable friend could secure an accelerated hearing where persons such as Mrs. Morgan are detained in prison pending an appeal under the Immigration Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is obviously another point that I shall want to raise with my right honourable friend when I raise the other matter.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL: PEACE TREATY
3.7 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government welcome the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel as a significant first step towards a comprehensive settlement.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is an outstanding historic event of this century—certainly during my lifetime? Will he see to it that strong action is taken by our Government, with other civilised Governments, to ensure that this result, which has been achieved by the courageous efforts and guidance of three dedicated people, is not in any sense diminished by our standing aside on any occasion when it should be encouraged? Will he please realise that what we have been talking about today, terrorism such as that threatened by the PLO, some of whom are still being harboured by us, is something this action can assist in preventing?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, we are all in agreement that an accord between Egypt and Israel is surely an historic event of great importance, and we strongly support what has been done
1706
under the leadership of the American President as a precursor, we hope, of a comprehensive settlement. A comprehensive settlement, one further hopes, would also solve the problems of terrorism in that area.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has sent any congratulations to President Sadat, to Mr. Begin and to President Carter on what is a notable achievement, despite subsequent problems that may occur? Has he done that? If so, has there been any publicity of it? If not, why not?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend has conveyed to the President of the United States, the President of Egypt and the Israeli Prime Minister his appreciation and admiration of their courage and constructive statesmenship through these difficult months of negotiation. No doubt he will continue, not only by words but by all possible action, to support this very promising attempt to move forward in the direction of a comprehensive settlement in this troubled area.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, could it not be accentuated a little more that historically this is the first time that the Eygptians and the Israelis have shaken hands since Pharaoh and Moses? If that point could be brought home we might realise the importance of this occasion.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had hoped, with my limited knowledge of history, that I had deferred to the historical expertise of my noble friend Lord Janner in this matter; but I do so even more freely, and willingly, with regard to the noble Baroness. I am sure that we are all conscious of the potential significance of this historic breakthrough. It can be the breakthrough not only in relation to Egypt and Israel but, even more importantly, in relation to the future pacification and development of the entire Middle East. The British posture—and, I am very glad to say, that of Western Europe—is to regard this historic breakthrough as the precursor of a comprehensive settlement in the area.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to take any active steps to reduce the isolation of Egypt from the other Arab countries: for example, by calling together a conference of the Arab representatives here in London and explaining to them very forcefully how much Her Majesty's Government welcome the achievement of this historic pact between two countries which have been virtually at war with each other for a period of 30 years?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend and the House that no diplomatic opportunity is missed to convey to our Arab friends—with whom, I am very pleased to say, we are in diplomatic and friendly relations—our attitude to what has been happening. We shall take advantage of every possible opportunity not only to explain our own attitude but, I hope, to explain and to help to create a growing consensus of agreement between Arabs and Israelis in regard to the future of the area. As to a conference, I think it is early days to talk of conferences. The day will come of course when all of those involved will need to be brought together round the same table to put in shape the kind of comprehensive settlement for which, I repeat, this breakthrough must be regarded as a precursor.
Lord WEIDENFELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that official circles and opinion-formers in the United States arc still somewhat dismayed by the first European reactions—including those of the United Kingdom—to the Washington treaty? They consider these reactions to be at best luke-warm, to some extent even counter-productive, by qualification and lack of fervour? Would my noble friend also agree that America seem to be strong and, if consistently and loyally backed by her European allies, are most likely to ensure the successful outcome of the negotiations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with due respect to my noble friend, this is not my reading of the American reaction to Western European comment on what has happened. Nor is it my reading of what has been said in this House or in the other place by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary about
1708
this matter. There can be no doubt that on the basis of what the community have said recently and in June 1977, when they laid down the basis of their attitude to the Middle East question, what the American President and the two statesmen from Egypt and Israel have already been able to achieve is wholly in accord with European desires and views. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister emphasised on the 27th of last month in the other place, it is most certainly the desire and the attitude of the United Kingdom.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I again ask my noble friend whether he will take the lead and see to it that civilised countries will assist Israel and Egypt? Egypt has about half the Arab population of the Middle East. Will he appreciate that such organisations as the PLO with all that they have been saying—and everybody here knows exactly how various are the kinds of things that they have been saying—have leaders among them who continue to advocate terrorism? Will he investigate how far they are acting together with other terrorists and will he see to it that they are prevented from acting from behind closed doors in our own country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly this Government, and no doubt, their successor—and they will probably be succeeded by themselves—will continue to examine very carefully from day to day the operations of terrorism and the best ways in which to safeguard this and other communities against its attentions. There is no need for my noble friend to ask this country to take the lead in the fight against terrorism. It has a very fine record in both the energy and the ideas which it has contributed to the worldwide fight against terrorism.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.15 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. Mr. Speaker will make a Statement on security in another place, and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will make a similar State-

1709
ment on security as it affects this House. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, who will then repeat a general Statement on security which is being made by the Home Secretary.
For the convenience of the House, I have been asked to make a Statement about the business before the House this week. As noble Lords will know, there will be important legislation to consider. In the present exceptional circumstances, the other place will send up to us those Government Bills which have their approval and will, in their turn, approve Government Bills which this House has agreed. In your Lordships' House, to meet what we believe will be the general wish, the Government have agreed that on Second Reading each Bill will have an explanation by the appropriate Minister, followed by a time for discussion, if desired. Remaining stages will be taken, not on the same day, but on a later day, with the exception of the Finance, Appropriation and Representation of the People Bills and two other Bills which will not reach us until the last sitting day, when it is hoped that all stages can be agreed. These two are the Weights and Measures Bill and the Leasehold Reform Bill, and I have arranged for summaries of their main provisions to be placed in the Printed Paper Office. These are available now.
Business will be taken in the order outlined in last Thursday's Hansard. In addition, the House will consider Commons Amendments to the Legal Aid Bill and a Motion to approve the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations on Wednesday. Because of possible postal difficulties with party notices, I have arranged for up-dated copies of business to be available in the Printed Paper Office today.
As I think the House knows, long and careful discussions have been held about what the right procedure should be in this almost unprecedented situation. The Government fully realise that it causes your Lordships great difficulty. We are a revising Chamber; we believe our legislative revision to be of the utmost importance, and, in normal times, we consider legislation in depth. But today we have had to balance the urgent need to place these Bills on the Statute Book against our
1710
normal and vital practice of detailed revision. In view of the explanation to be made at the Second Reading of each Bill as it comes before your Lordships, I hope that these arrangements will be accepted by the House.
With the leave of the House, may I take this opportunity to announce that dinners will be available on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for this business Statement and, at the same time, to confirm that the measures that your Lordships are being asked to put through during these three days do have the agreement of the Opposition. At the end of last Wednesday's historic confidence debate in another place, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that while the Government no longer had the authority to carry on business without the agreement of the Opposition, we would facilitate by such agreement any business for which there was a need.
As the noble Baroness has said, your Lordships are being asked to waive to a certain extent your rights, and indeed your obligations, as a revising Chamber; and my noble friend Lord Carrington expressed very strong reservations last Thursday on the propriety of this. But I should like to make it clear that the list of measures which your Lordships are now being asked to pass in this way are not only ones to which your Lordships have no objections but ones which they actively want to see on the Statute Book before dissolution. My noble friend Lord Carrington, who unfortunately cannot be here today, has therefore withdrawn his reservations, and it is with the full authority of my right honourable friends in another place that I would ask your Lordships to do everything possible to smooth the passage of the measures.

CREDIT UNIONS BILL
3.21 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved,
(1) That the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid;
(2) That a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
(3) That every such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
(4) That the proceedings on any such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
(5) That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private Bill which shall have originated in this House in the present Session, in regard
1712
to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed;
(6) That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill in the next Session unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.
—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended for the remainder of this Session so far as is necessary to give the Government power to arrange the order of business and that Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken in one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Wells-Pestell to advance the Third Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill from Tuesday next to this day and to the Lord McCluskey to advance the Report stage of the Banking Bill from Thursday next to this day.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRY BILL
3.24 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not think I need detain the House very long, since we had a full debate on Second Reading. We also agreed that the Committee stage should

1713
be negatived and that since this is a money Bill the Third Reading, in the normal course of business, would not have been debated. However, in the light of subsequent events, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Leader of the Opposition, has sought an assurance from the Government about commitments that will be incurred against the new financial limits between the enactment of the Bill and the coming General Election.
In the Second Reading debate I told your Lordships that at the end of February £830 million was either charged or committed against the National Enterprise Board's existing financial limit of £1,000 million. That figure of £830 million is now £850 million. I went on to say that the outstanding balance was less than the requirements of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce in the near future. The National Enterprise Board would have to commit itself to £150 million in respect of British Leyland and to very substantial sums in respect of Rolls-Royce before the Election. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry is making an announcement this afternoon in another place during Question Time. There will also be an announcement expected shortly on Rolls-Royce affairs.
Your Lordships will recall that there is a technical change in the Bill that makes all borrowings of all subsidiaries count against the new financial limit so when the Bill is enacted there will be an immediate charge against the limit of £600 million. This figure was given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill in another place.
Against this background I can assure your Lordships that, apart from the technical change and the commitments about to be entered into in respect of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce, the charges that the National Enterprise Board will incur against its financial limit between now and the General Election will be contained within the existing financial limit of £1,000 million. I think that meets the letter and the spirit of the assurance that was sought by the noble Lord, and I therefore invite your Lordships to agree that this Bill should have a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in assuring the Opposition's agreement to all these measures, I think that perhaps my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, Lord Denham, went rather too far when he said that all these Bills had the entire support of this side. I think that on the question of the Industry Bill we had very considerable reservations about the expenditure and about the fact that £600 million had been borrowed over and above what Parliament had allowed. So we were glad to have the assurance from the noble Lord. With that assurance and our general feeling that money is being spent too liberally—it has risen —20 million since Second Reading—and with those reservations we are glad to accept the Bill as it is now. However, we have considerable reservations about the extent of the expenditure.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to add to that and to associate myself with what my noble friend has said. I think we must be very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but I am a little puzzled as to why the period of limitation of expenditure, so to speak, is between the enactment of the Bill and the coming General Election. Would it not have been more logical to have it between the enactment of the Bill and the time when Parliament resumes after that?
3.29 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as this is a Third Reading debate, perhaps it would be more convenient if I spoke before the noble Lord opposite seeks to wind up and to answer these points.
First of all, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance, so far as it goes, that he has given today in reply to the point which my noble friend Lord Carrington has put since last Thursday. We will naturally study the announcement on this subject to be made in another place. This is a money Bill and therefore, as the noble Lord has said, in the normal course of events, having had a Second Reading debate, which we did last week, we would not have had a debate on Third Reading. On the other hand, very very large sums of money are involved where this Bill is concerned, and therefore it is a matter of

1715
considerable concern to your Lordships, as well as to my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, that the expenditure should be contained during the coming weeks until a new Government is in office.
It should not really be called an "Industry Bill". I must make that clear to my noble friends who were not here for the debate on Second Reading. This Bill simply raises the limits for the amount of money concerning three bodies, and it is misleading for it to have been called an "Industry Bill". But, seeing that it is confined to raising these limits, and raising them to very large sums indeed, it is of course a money Bill to which the other place has addressed itself. Again, I thank the noble Lord for having said what he did, but I should like to share the reservations of my two noble friends.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, in recent years, this House has little discussed the Finance Bill or anything that comes under the heading of a money Bill. Now, in spite of the very clear explanation by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading, this Bill comes as a surprise to many in the House. I think it is right that Back-Benchers should raise this question, because, over a long period of memory in this House, it is seldom that there has been any Bill of this magnitude presented at this period in the life of a Parliament, and, in my opinion, it would be wrong if it were to receive the agreement of the House without some protest being made. Furthermore, in spite of my noble friends' agreement to deal with the present difficult situation to the best of their ability, it seems right that there should be a voice of surprise raised.
Also, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, this is not an Industry Bill; it is a Finance Bill. It ought to have a different name. It is entirely misleading that it should go down in history that we have voted on this as an Industry Bill, when money is not going to private industry; it is going to public bodies.
3.33 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I shall reply in reverse order to the queries raised. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that this is not something which
1716
the Government scraped through the other place. It had a majority of 50, and since it is a money Bill that is significant. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that in using the name "Industry Bill" we followed the precedent. The previous Bill dealing with this matter was called "Industry Bill", and it is right that we should follow that precedent. To the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I would say that it is intended that this should be acted upon in the spirit, and I do not think there is any significant difference between the date of the Election and the date when the new Government takes office. We certainly did not intend there to be any difference. To the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I would say that I am quite sure he did not wish in any way to mislead the House, but he may have done so and, consequently I want to explain the point he raised.
Under present legislation, there counts against the financial limit everything that is borrowed by a wholly-owned subsidiary. But there are some subsidiaries which are not wholly-owned. Instead of being wholly-owned, they are 95 per cent. owned; for example, BL. In those cases, as the law stood, the only money borrowed which counted against the financial limit was that which was provided by the National Enterprise Board, or that which was guaranteed by the National Enterprise Board. If those subsidiaries which were not wholly-owned borrowed money in a commercial way from the bank, that did not count against the financial limit, and there is a lot to be said for that state of the law.
However, it has been brought into question for audit purposes. The auditor wants to know whether he can draw up accounts on the assumption that the business is a going concern, and in order that he may do so he may ask the National Enterprise Board for certain assurances. The National Enterprise Board may wish to give those assurances, but if it gives them it does not make any difference whatever to the credit standing of the subsidiary, nor does it give any greater security to the bank or whoever has made the loan to the subsidiary. But it does mean that there is an assurance—something short of a guarantee—and it was felt that, because of that very technical reason, there should be a change. It really means that subsidiaries of the

1717
NEB which are not fully owned and which borrow money from the bank shall have that borrowing counted against the financial limit of the NEB. That makes it clear that the financial limit is not an amount of taxpayers' money which is available to the NEB. A very great deal of it will come, in the ordinary commercial course of events, from the bank. I hope that that makes the position clear to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Bill passed.

SECURITY
3.37 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a brief Statement arising out of the tragedy which occurred last Friday and to which reference has been made at the beginning of Questions. Mr. Speaker is making a similar Statement in another place.
Following the bomb explosion on Friday, I have approved the following recommendations by the Joint Committee on Security. First, Westminster Hall will be closed to the public and the line of route will be suspended. Secondly, all strangers, including guests and visitors not accompanied by a Peer, must enter and leave by the check-point at St. Stephen's Entrance. The police have been instructed accordingly. These restrictions will remain in effect so long as it is judged to be necessary in the interests of security. So far as the House of Lords car parks are concerned, I have authorised the police to check all cars at their discretion. Finally, the Metropolitan Police have submitted a detailed report on the explosion, the implications of which are being considered by the Joint Security Committee.
For reasons of security, I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into any further details of other measures which have already been taken or may be
1718
taken in the future. If any of your Lordships have any questions on these matters I hope that you will address them to me or Black Rod, for reference if necessary to the Joint Committee on Security. I hope the House will consider that its interests are best served by letting the matter rest there.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I should have thought it would be quite clear to any noble Lord that steps have to be taken and, on the face of it, these seem to be very sensible steps. They are steps which are restrictive of the working or liberty of those of us in either of the two Houses, but they are brought upon us by the wicked, evil act which took place last Friday. Therefore, my noble friends and I wholly agree with what has been suggested.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Lord Chairman for the Statement which he has just made, and to say on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches that we are entirely in agreement with the steps he is taking.

GENERAL SECURITY
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.
"Mr. Speaker, I should like first to repeat to the House the tribute you have made to the life and work of Mr. Airey Neave, and to join my voice and that of the Government in offering our deep condolences to his wife and family.
"In your statement, Mr. Speaker, you have dealt with the facts of his tragic and violent death last Friday afternoon and with the security arrangements for the Palace of Westminster.
"On the general issue of security during the forthcoming campaign, I have myself maintained continuing contact with both the Commissioner of

1719
Police of the Metropolis and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I met them on Friday afternoon when the news of the bomb attack was known and again this morning. I have discussed with them the reports over the last few months that the IRA were planning an offensive campaign on the mainland to coincide with a General Election. The House can be fully assured that the general and specific protective measures undertaken by the police have been enhanced and will remain so. The police are in touch with a number of those who may be particularly at risk; but the House would not expect me to go into the detail of the arrangements being made either here in London or at the ports.
"Also this morning I met the organisers from the major political parties and discussed with them the precautions that need to be taken, by and in consultation with the police, to do everything possible to protect party leaders, candidates and the public during the coming General Election campaign. As the House knows, the responsibility for maintenance of law and order rests with the chief officers of police concerned. I am sure they will take all the necessary steps they can to maintain the highest possible level of protection, but I should also like to emphasise now that it is equally a matter for each individual, whether an election candidate or anybody else, to be fully conscious of the need for increased vigilance themselves at the present time. Arrangements are in hand for all candidates and agents to receive police guidance on these matters.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn briefly to two other points which relate to Airey Neave's tragic death. First, the House should be aware that for a number of years the police have been in regular contact with Airey Neave, and I understand that he expressed himself satisfied with the steps they were taking for his protection. Second, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to some newspaper reports, including one this morning, that the police in Northern Ireland were two weeks ago in possession of a new list of targets and that they passed it to the Metropolitan Police, who failed to
1720
act upon it. I want to make it plain to the House that this is untrue. I received confirmation from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary this morning, after he had seen today's reports, that no such "death list" was in their possession and that it could not have been passed to the police on the mainland. Perhaps I could also add that unsubstantiated and mischievous rumours of this kind are not just a disservice to those who seek to protect their fellow citizens, but they also divert them from their essential tasks.
"Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my statement the claim that the IRA would introduce a new terrorist campaign in Great Britain to coincide with a General Election. Their objective and that of others who may be involved is both vicious and divisive, but they and their supporters should know that they will not succeed in their objective. I am sure that no right honourable or honourable Members of this House will allow the forthcoming General Election campaign to be distorted by terrorist threats. They will serve only to reinforce the resolve of the British people not to be divided in the face of violence."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Certainly it was a grave Statement, one which, in years gone by, few noble Lords would have anticipated having to hear. That there was talk of an offensive being deliberately started by these evil people comes as no surprise, since many noble Lords will have read of this in the newspapers for some time past.
Clearly it is quite right that in the Statement no mention should have been made of specific details. The Statement refers to arrangements being made either here in London or at the ports, but I trust that it goes without saying that these arrangements should not be limited only to London and the ports. There are other places at which, I am sure, suitable arrangements for security must and will be taken. Secondly, it is said that security

1721
is a matter for each individual. Anybody who has had experience of government in Northern Ireland since 1969 must know that this is very true. Sometimes people are too self-conscious over matters affecting security when it is very important that they should take them seriously.
The reference to Mr. Airey Neave is what one would have expected: that of course he would say that he was satisfied with the police arrangements which had been made for him. He was a very brave man. I am sure that he felt that he wanted nothing to prevent him from doing all that he could in the public service which he was carrying out. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I should like to repeat and emphasise what the Minister has said about these evil men forcing us to do that which we should not do. This country has faced graver threats from equally evil men, but with greater strength behind them. Never have they succeeded, and I agree that they will not succeed now.
Lord WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble colleagues may I join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. Very fitting, eloquently worded tributes have already been paid to Airey Neave. It is not necessary for me to repeat them, except to say how deeply I concur with what has been said. We have also had the Statement on security in the Houses of Parliament, and we now come to the general issue of security.
If I may make a personal comment, I have had the privilege of serving in this building, either at one end or the other, for just on 30 years—that is no record; there are many who have served for a longer period than that—but throughout that long period I cannot recall any occasion when, on one day, we have paid tribute to a distinguished Member who has lost his life, when we have had a discussion on the security of the building and when we have had to discuss the security of the nation.
It is a complex issue, and I shall ask only two questions. Does the noble Lord agree that it is important that the country—and through the country generally the leaders of public opinion—should not become rattled or give way to emotional reactions because of the events which have occurred? Neverthe-
1722
less, the position is extremely serious. Secondly, arising out of this Statement, does the noble Lord agree that it would be helpful if the Government could give some more advice as to how to reconcile increased vigilance with the avoidance of alarmist rumours? It is not only candidates and agents who may have to report matters that they think are disturbing; we are asking the general public to do so. On the other hand, we do not want the security forces to be flooded with rumours. May I ask the noble Lord whether we have the personnel to cope with reports of something that is suspected to be dangerous but which may prove not to be? How do we reconcile those two aims?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I be so bold as to ask the Minister one question which touches upon the point raised by our Front Bench Oppositon? The Minister said that Mr. Airey Neave was satisfied with the protection given to him. As our Front Bench speaker has said, a modest, brave man would, of course, say that, since he would not wish to give unnecessary or avoidable trouble to the authorities. My question is this: Is the satisfaction of a candidate, or a Minister or a speaker as to his security to be the yardstick by which security is governed? Surely it is necessary for the security people to impose upon an individual the security which they consider to be necessary, irrespective of the individual's bravery of opinion?
3.50 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for their general observations on the Statement which has been made. So far as Mr. Airey Neave himself is concerned, perhaps I may just add this to what has already been said. He was a courageous fighter for freedom all his life and we share in the terrible grief of his wife and of his family, but also I think we take comfort in the privilege of having known him.
So far as the protection measures are concerned, which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson—and I am grateful to him for not pressing me on the details, for the reason which he himself validly gave—it might be helpful

1723
if I were to supplement, to some extent, what has already been said about the general advice which it is possible to give both to parties and to noble Lords and to people generally. So far as the election campaign itself is concerned, and security matters related specifically to that, I can inform your Lordships of certain arrangements which were made after a discussion which took place this morning, which was held under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and at which I was also present; discussions with the police and with representatives of the main party organisations, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary will be advising chief constables to contact regional and local party organisers, to give advice and guidance and to encourage independent and minor parties to seek such guidance. The chief inspector and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will contact the newspaper conference about Press accreditation during the campaign and chief constables will be contacting editors in their own police areas. It may be of help to your Lordships to know that arrangements are in hand, as a result of a decision taken by the Commissioner, for sufficient copies—1,500 per party—of the guidance booklet prepared by the police to go to the three main party headquarters for distribution to agents and candidates and other essential users.
Turning to other more personal protective measures, and again without going into detail for the obvious reasons stated, I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would not be in the interests of protection if I were to go further into detail than this. The police have stepped up their efforts, but much must depend on public vigilance and I cannot stress that too strongly. I would advise noble Lords themselves—and perhaps this is advice which should be passed on to others—to take certain basic precautions: to make their homes secure against unauthorised entry; to make sure that callers at their house identify themselves; to avoid predictable patterns of travel which would enable a terrorist to plan an attack; to look all round and underneath a car before starting or moving it and so far as possible to leave it in a secure place, and to watch out for letter bombs. I should add that the police themselves are in a
1724
position to give more detailed personal advice. Some of these matters may seem all too obvious; it would be better if they were fully followed by all of us in the future.
I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said about the dangers of alarmist measures. In the past this country has shown that it will not be rattled and I am confident that we are all of us capable of ensuring that we shall not be rattled in this situation, just as we have not been in other situations. With regard to his specific query concerning suspicions, there the police advice is that they would always welcome knowledge of any suspicious circumstances so that they can follow it up. The point has already been made to your Lordships about mischievous rumours, which is a rather different matter.
Certainly, in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, as to whether or not the police could cope, I have—as indeed have the Government—complete confidence in the ability of the police in London and throughout the country to cope with this or any other situation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning them and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and the other services for the work that they do, often in circumstances of very great danger.
With regard to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I quite appreciate the point, but I think that this matter of personal protection is one which is best left for the police to go into themselves, so that they and those concerned may be satisfied about the protection measures offered. I do not feel that your Lordships would wish me to spell out these matters in any further detail this afternoon.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree with everything that has been said by everybody today, except one thing? I hope that we are not going to be troubled about conducting the election in a normal fashion. I hope that we are not going to do anything slightly to intimidate people from holding or addressing meetings or voting when it comes to polling day. I can understand the need for security, particularly for those high-ranking people,

1725
naturally, who have to be protected, but the election has to be conducted and we must not allow anybody to interfere with it, whether they are terrorists from Ireland or anywhere else, and that should be clearly understood.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should just like to say that, during the 1959 election campaign, I had two bombs in my office, one of which went off and the other fortunately did not. I should like him to say whether the police or somebody designated to do so could go round and tell the agents what apparatus one should keep in the office in order to take preliminary action until somebody else can come.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, if I may say so my noble friend Lord Shinwell is absolutely right and his remarks really crystallise the point here. The democratic process in this country is established, and whatever happens that must continue. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in the course of my earlier remarks I mentioned the general advice to be given, and I am quite sure that the police would welcome hearing from any particular people of the kind mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, as to particular advice to them, either at the offices from which they are operating or at their homes. I think that the guidance booklets to be sent out will be of considerable assistance in this direction, and certainly follow-up action will be taken by police officers elsewhere. But, if there are particular problems which people wish to have answered or wish to have guidance or advice about, I am quite sure that the police would be happy to hear from them and to provide it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the very important and impressive series of measures which the Minister has just been good enough to explain to us, and in view of the fact that it must cause this subject to pass through all our minds, does the Minister happen to be in a position to give information as to the extent to which the police, both in the metropolitan area and in the country as a whole, are still under strength?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I think that raises rather different matters from those which are before your Lordships this afternoon. I can only say that in recent weeks there have been some encouraging signs in that direction.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
4 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. (Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 3 [Standing committees of Council]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to take both these Amendments together; they are technical Amendments needed to improve the drafting of the Bill so as to make it easier to construe. There is nothing sinister in them at all, and I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 1.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 (Standing committees of Boards]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 24, leave out second ("who")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think it would be right to let the Bill pass without making one or two comments about the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves today. This Bill

1727
is not a party political Bill in any sense. But it is one which has raised very real issues of principle between different medical organisations, the nurses, the midwives and the health visitors. I think it only right to tell the House that today I have received no fewer than two telephone calls and three telegrams expressing concern about Clause 4 of this Bill and the way that the midwives are being treated.
One of the telephone calls was from Miss Dent of the Royal College of Midwives, who is still very concerned about the scope of Clause 4. We did discuss this matter both in Committee and on Report, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been good enough to write me a further long letter about the provisions of Clause 4. I am glad to be able to confirm to the House and to put on the record that it is a fact that the council will be required to consult the midwifery committee on any proposal which affects midwifery education. This was a matter on which I was not quite clear on Report, and I am glad to have it on the record that that is the meaning of Clause 4.
The difficulty in which I find myself, and one which I think is shared by the midwives' profession, is that, since Clause 4 was originally added to the Bill in another place and amended on Report, this House has added Clause 8 with regard to health visitors. Clause 8 is worded somewhat differently to Clause 4. If we look at Clause 8(3), it is clear that the council shall not act on any such matters before receiving a recommendation of the joint committee. It therefore makes a much stronger claim for the joint committee than for the midwifery committee, which, under Clause 4(2), the council must consult, but of course the council does not have to act upon the consultations.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been good enough to explain the reason for this difference: it is that the committees are different in that the health visitors committee's position is unique as a first committee, and it is quite clear that its parent bodies have to wait for its advice, whereas the position of the midwifery committee is that it is a separate committee; the council will consult it but it does not have to take its advice, except in the case of its own practice, which is set out in
1728
Clause 3, under which the midwifery committee has the right to make or amend its rules. I do see that there is this difference.
It is to me personally a matter of regret that there is still some unhappiness on this point. We are too late in the proceedings to be able to put this right. I have made this statement in some detail this afternoon because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is himself concerned about this. I feel it right to express my own concern about this unresolved matter, and I should like to hope that in the subsequent carrying out of this Bill these very real fears may at least be met in some administrative way. This is not, it seems to me, a party political matter in any sense. I think the difficulty arises that if more powers are given to the nurses and health visitors the midwives feel disturbed, and the same applies the other way round. It is very much a balance of powers between the three groups of people. As they are all so important to our national life and as their education is so important, it does seem to me somewhat unfortunate that one party to this Bill is not completely happy about its terms.
As I say, I believe that at this stage it is too late to do anything. I and my colleagues regret that we are in the position of not having the time to go into this matter as thoroughly as we should have liked. We accept, with our colleagues in another place, that it would be wrong to hold up this Bill which the nurses and the other professions clearly would like, and on balance we feel that it is better to let the Bill go on to the statute book even in its present state than to seek to amend it further. If the noble Lord feels that he can say anything on this point about the midwives, I think it would be helpful to have it on the record so that they may have the opportunity to study the record and see the interpretation the Government puts on this matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We were concerned, as she knows only too well, to see whether there was anything in the point that she made at the last stage of this Bill. As the noble Baroness quite rightly says, I did take advice on this. A very long discussion took place and it resulted in a further letter to the noble Baroness. I

1729
have had an opportunity over the weekend of looking at that letter. I do not really think there is anything between us at all. I am quite sure in my own mind that this arises as a result of a certain misunderstanding on the part of the midwives.
It is very often not appreciated by people outside Parliament that you can give committees of various bodies certain powers and authority without necessarily having to use the same phraseology. For example, if we look at the top of page 3 of the Bill, under Clause 3 we see the words:
"The Council shall consult the Finance Committee on all financial matters",
and there it is left, simply because "consult" can mean only one thing; it means consultation. It is perfectly true that, in the last analysis, the Central Council is the supreme body, but the Central Council must be the supreme body. I should like to make the point clear. As I have said, I have explained to the noble Baroness that, although she was quite right that the particular provision then under discussion, namely, Clause 4(3), did not relate to midwifery practice—and she accepted that—all other matters affecting midwives were covered elsewhere. The noble Baroness conceded that that was so.
Clause 4(2) requires the council to consult the midwifery committee on:
"all matters relating to midwifery".
I do not think that there can be anything more embracing than that. I repeat that it says:
"all matters relating to midwifery".
Thus the committee will certainly be able to play its part in the formation of policy in respect not only of midwifery practice, but of matters of midwifery education and training. As I have said, we use the word "consult" in the Bill to mean precisely that, bearing in mind that in the last analysis the council is the supreme authority. With that explanation, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BANKING BILL
4.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Control of deposit-taking and meaning of "deposit"]:
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("deposit") to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is associated, as your Lordships will recall from our discussions in Committee, with Schedule 1. The other Amendment to which I shall refer in this connection is Amendment No. 13 on the Marshalled List. We are discussing here the Girobank. The Government have throughout believed that Girobank must, because of its constitutional position as a nationalised industry, be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. Girobank, as part of the Post Office, is governed by the provisions of the Post Office Act 1969 and the Post Office (Banking Services) Act 1976. These place it under various statutory duties, reflecting the fact that ultimate responsibility for it lies through Ministers with Parliament. To make Girobank subject, under statute. to the Bank's supervision would confuse this constitutional position. But, as has been pointed out before, Girobank is subject to a system of supervision which is very like that set up by the Banking Bill and in which the Bank of England is closely involved. Of course, the competitive position is preserved by Girobank making contributions to the Treasury equivalent to what it would have paid under the deposit protection scheme. In the Government's view this provides effective supervision and competitive equality while preserving the constitutional position. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting again the argument which I believe does not hold one ounce of water. I am personally totally against the Amendment. I think that it is inequitable, unfair and in every way unnecessary. I feel that the situation was much better as it was originally. However, in view of the course of business that we are undertaking at present I have not much option but to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 7:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
Clause 2, page 3, line 22, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
Clause 2, page 3, line 28, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
Clause 2, page 3, line 30, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
Clause 2, page 3, line 30, leave out ("it") and insert ("that person").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 7. Amendment No. 2 is one of a number of associated Amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14. The Amendments, notably No. 14, will add stockbrokers and stockjobbers—that is, to say stockbrokers and stockjobbers in the course of business as such —to Schedule 1, thereby removing them from the ambit of the Bill. The Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 which are effected here are merely paving Amendments to the substantive Amendment, No. 14.
During the Report stage in another place the Minister of State undertook to introduce an Amendment along these lines in this House, adding members of the Stock Exchange to Schedule 1. That is the effect of these Amendments. With leave of your Lordships I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 en bloc.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has brought forward this matter, as an undertaking was given in another place. However, I should like to take the opportunity to mention one particular matter and to put it on record. As I mentioned on Second Reading, and in Committee, an unsatisfactory situation prevails as regards investment bankers. I think that the House probably does not appreciate the amount of loss that investment bankers can sustain as a result of being excluded from using the name "investment bankers". I raised the matter and I should like to quantify it. Although I am told, as usually is the case, that nobody will sustain any loss at all, I believe from looking at the situation that the case must be put the other way and that the City could, in fact, lose over £25 million worth of overseas business. It is just a point in
1732
passing, but something will have to be done about it later. However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing stockbrokers in at this stage.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Maximum and minimum contributions]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("Subject to subsection (5) below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will find it within himself, in the course of the afternoon, to welcome something I say wholeheartedly. Perhaps I may be lucky this time. Amendment No. 8 simply deletes the words: "Subject to subsection (5) below". What we are doing here is making an Amendment consequential upon the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment, Amendment No. 12, which was made against the wishes of the Government during the Committee stage in this House. That Amendment removed the power to increase, by order, the overall limit on contributions from 0·3 per cent. of the deposit base to a maximum of 0·6 per cent. As the power—which was contained in subsection (5)—has been removed, subsection (3) is no longer "subject to subsection (5) below". The Amendment therefore removes those words. Therefore, let it be quite plain that we are accepting something; and this is not the only matter—I shall refer to others. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will acknowledge that.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I make it a policy of playing hard to get! However, as regards this matter, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, as it tidies up the situation. I am grateful that it has been done at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Restriction on use of certain names and descriptions]:
4.19 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 9:

1733
Page 39, line 29, leave out from ("in") to ("if") in line 31 and insert ("a country or territory outside the United Kingdom of the name under which the institution carries on business in that country or territory").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. Considerable concern was expressed in Committee that the Bill as it stood would prevent branches of overseas llicensed institutions, other than EEC licensed institutions, from using in the United Kingdom a banking name by which their head office is registered in its country of origin. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moved in Committee an Amendment—I think that it was Amendment No. 77—which, in the Government's view, was too wide in that it would have allowed certain overseas licensed institutions to use their banking name without any indication of their status as licensed institutions, and also to use banking descriptions without any restrictions. I indicated then that, while this went too far, the Government had always believed that the provision in Clause 36(8) permitting EEC licensed institutions the qualified use of their banking name should be extended to overseas licensed institutions generally.
That then is the effect of the Amendment which I now move. It would resolve any difficulty that might otherwise arise in respect of certain Australian savings banks to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, made some reference in Committee. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, originally, I thought that the Amendment which we proposed in Committee was slightly better because the whole question was about the competitiveness of English institutions against foreign institutions. We are now at a point where that situation could continue for some time before we could finally tune it enough to be acceptable all round. Therefore, the best answer at this stage is probably to let anybody from outside come in. Of course, we must accept the point that the English institutions are at a disadvantage.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, there is one thing that I never allow to pass in this House, and that is the use of the
1734
word "English" when it means "British", and I shall not allow it to pass on this occasion.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. However, I am President of the Royal Society of St. George and perhaps that word slipped out. I accept that it should be "British".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (10).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This Amendment has the effect of deleting a provision which was inserted at the Committee stage in this House, I think substantially, if not wholly, for the benefit of Thomas Cook Bankers Limited.
In moving that provision the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, expressed concern that the New York agency of Thomas Cook Bankers Limited, and the Paris branch of Thomas Cook Bankers (France) Limited would lose their banking licences in New York and France respectively as a consequence of losing their banking names. That is not our understanding of the position. As I indicated at the time, as Thomas Cook Bankers takes no deposits, it will have no status under United Kingdom banking legislation, and this would remain a directly relevant consideration so far as the New York banking licence is concerned, even if means could be found of allowing the company to keep its name. The company will, however, be able to continue its present activities in the United States on the basis of a money transmissions licence.
So far as the deposit-taking branch in Paris is concerned, there is no reason to suppose that the loss of its banking name would in any way threaten the continuance of its French banking licence. Therefore, in the Government's view Clause 36(10) does not meet the concern about the New York banking licence and is not necessary to ensure retention of the French banking licence. As I indicated previously, the name "Thomas Cook" enjoys a high reputation in its own right and the deletion of the word "Bankers"

1735
seems most unlikely to have material implications for the company. Indeed, I understand that the United States dollar travellers' cheques in New York have recently been issued under the name of Thomas Cook Incorporated.
It is also extremely difficult to conceive of any provision that would accommodate Thomas Cook Bankers without being so tight as to be unacceptably discriminatory or even hybrid, or so loose as to open up a large loophole in the banking names policy. The terms of Clause 36(10) would, for instance, allow any subsidiaries of foreign recognised banks—whatever their status or the nature of their activities—to set up in the United Kingdom under a banking name that they enjoyed on 9th November 1978. That would be highly undesirable in itself and could raise real difficulties of discrimination against EEC institutions and our own domestic institutions. The Government therefore recommend the House to delete this provision by accepting the Amendment which I now move.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for those remarks. We are really dealing here with a question of opinion. I have been advised that Thomas Cook probably would be adversely affected, but my hereditary inclinations make me more inclined to accept Scottish rather than English advice on this. However, I would remind the noble and learned Lord that it was a Government—not his Government—which sold Thomas Cook to the private sector with a banking licence, and goodwill was paid for that. One of the conditions at that time was that Thomas Cook should do all they could and should definitely look after the interests of their employees. If the noble and learned Lord says that there will be no loss of banking licence in France or America, that is good enough for me personally, and I hope that it is good enough for Thomas Cook. In fact, should they lose their licence, perhaps they might approach the Government again for some form of compensation.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, let me make myself quite clear. I was not saying that there would be no loss; I was saying that the result of the Bill would not produce any such loss.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, the difference between cause and effect can either be a short journey or a long and twisted one. In this case, if Thomas Cook did lose their licence it would almost certainly be on account of this Bill. However, despite its flaws, I think that it is a good Bill and I certainly withdraw my objections.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Regulation of interest rate quotation]:
4.26 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out clause 38 and insert the following clause:
((1) In section 74 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (certain agreements excluded from Part V of that Act) after subsection (3) (certain overdraft agreements excluded only where the Director General of Fair Trading makes a determination) there shall be inserted the following subsection:
"(3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3)(b) above, in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is the Bank of England or a bank within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879, the Director shall make a determination that subsection (1)(b) above applies unless he considers that it would be against the public interest to do so";
and in subsection (4) of that section (certain agreements in writing falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) subject to regulations as to form and content) for "(1)(b) or (c)", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "(1)(c)".
(2) Nothing in sections 114 to 122 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (pledges) shall be taken to apply to bearer bonds and, accordingly, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 114 of that Act (exclusion of pledges of documents of title) after the word "title" there shall be inserted the words "or of bearer bonds".
(3) In section 185(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (which relates to dispensing notices given by one of two or more debtors to whom running-account credit is provided) at the end of the proviso there shall be added the following paragraph:
"(c) a dispensing notice which is operative in relation to an agreement shall be operative also in relation to any subsequent agreement which, in relation to the earlier agreement, is a modifying agreement".")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I must point out to the House that on the Marshalled List we have an Amendment No. 11 which is to leave out

1737
Clause 38 and to insert a new clause. However, with leave, I shall now move in substitution for Amendment No. 11 a typescript Amendment which has been circulated and made available to those noble Lords who are interested.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, it has not been made available to all noble Lords.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I understand that from a sedentary position the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is saying that he has not seen it. However, he is now waving a typescript Amendment at me, so I think he now has it. I should explain for his benefit, so that he may quickly catch up with the rest of us, that the only difference between the Amendment which appears on the Marshalled List as No. 11 and the one which is typed is that following upon the new subsection which is numbered 3A, there are added four lines, the purpose of which I hope to explain.
Clause 38, which was inserted at Committee stage, exempts certain recognised banks from certain provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The clause appears to apply to a very wide range of agreements and, moreover, in its application only to certain recognised banks, runs counter to the principle of the 1974 Act that there should be no institutional discrimination. The Government maintain their view that for these reasons it should be removed from the Bill. The Government accept, however, that there are aspects of the 1974 Act over which the banks are seriously concerned and that these include their uncertainty over the operation of the provision on in Section 74 to exempt from Part V of that Act debtor-creditor agreements enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account. The combination of fluctuating daily balance and fluctuating interest rate that characterise overdrafts on current accounts make it extremely difficult to apply these provisions of the Consumer Credit Act to them and, although the Banking Bill is not perhaps the most appropriate vehicle for dealing with the matter, the Government accept that on the merits of the case there should be a presumption in favour of exempting overdrafts, whether or not these are the subject of a written agreement.
1738
It may be helpful if I were to attempt to explain how the Amendment will work. Under the Act, the provision exempting overdrafts from Part V applies only where the Director General of Fair Trading so determines. Such a determination in terms of the Act, first, may be made subject to such conditions as the Director General thinks fit and, secondly, shall be made only if the Director General is of opinion that it is not against the interests of debtors.
The clause to which I now speak—the one circulated in typescript to almost all noble Lords—requires the Director General to make such a determination where the creditor is the Bank of England or a bank within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879, unless he considers that it would be against the public interest to do so. I should perhaps explain to your Lordships, just in case some have not noticed, that in fact the appropriate section of the 1879 Act is amended by Schedule 6 to the present Bill, so that the definition of the bank is now contained in that Schedule to the 1979 Bill. This definition, as so amended, includes recognised banks, licensed institutions, Trustee Savings banks, municipal banks, the National Savings Bank and National Girobank. It is therefore non-discriminatory. It applies to all institutions likely to operate genuine current account overdrafts. The Amendment ensures that the Director General's determination will also apply to overdrafts which are the subject of a written agreement. Indeed, that is the effect of the four lines added in the manuscript Amendment.
At the same time there are other parts of new Clause 38 to which I should draw attention. The new subsection (2) is the first of these. Sections 114 to 122 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will, when operative, govern the taking of articles in pawn. It was never intended that these provisions should apply to bearer bonds. There is however a doubt whether "a pledge of documents of title" in Section 114(3)(a) exempts bearer bonds. The Amendment is intended to remove that doubt. It ensures that the Provisions relating to articles taken in pawn will not apply to bearer bonds.
I turn now to the proposed new subsection (3). Section 78(4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will, when opera-

1739
tive, require the creditor under an agreement for running-account credit regulated by the Act to give the debtor statements showing the state of the account at regular intervals. I understand that the banks accept in principle that this is a reasonable requirement. There is, however, frequently more than one debtor under an agreement, as when there is a joint agreement for husband and wife. It will normally be wasteful for both debtors to receive separate statements. Section 185 makes provision for dispensing notices under which a joint debtor may authorise the creditor not to give him a periodical statement of account.
Section 185(2) states that,
"the dispensing notice shall have effect accordingly until revoked by a further notice given by the debtor to the creditor…".
It appears, however, that, where an agreement is modified through, for example, the credit limit being increased, the dispensing notice will lapse. The Amendment will make certain that dispensing notices will not lapse in such circumstances. The provisions, so far as they relate to the new subsections (2) and (3), are of a technical character and I understand that they are generally welcome. I hope that your Lordships will give them the same welcome that I expect your Lordships will give to the first part of the proposed new clause. I beg to move.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, while not quite giving the Amendment a standing ovation, at the same time we are most glad that this matter has been taken care of. It proves the point that it is worth pressing and pressing despite all the difficulties that are always said to exist. It is one good part that we now have in the Bill, as well as—I hope—something which will be accepted later on. The Banking Bill now actually covers some important aspects of banking which have been neglected for some time. I am grateful for the clear explanation that has been given. I had not had a copy of this, but I knew of its contents, which was the point I was trying to make. I am grateful that the overdraft situation has been taken care of as regards the Consumer Credit Act, and for the tidying up that has been done by means of the two other bits written into this Bill. I am grateful for the trouble that has been taken, and I am glad that it is now in the Bill.
Lord O'BRIEN of LOTHBURY: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Seebohm, who first raised this matter on Second Reading with my strong support, I should like on his behalf and my own to endorse the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to these changes which the Government have made. I think it shows that they have been prepared to approach this important problem in a fair and open-minded way. It is true that it could be said not to be entirely relevant to this Bill, but it was a great opportunity not to be missed. I am extremely glad that we have not missed it.
Not only will the whole banking system be grateful, but I believe that its customers will also be grateful. Among those customers of course none are more valuable than those in your Lordships' House, some tiny minority of whom may from time to time need an overdraft and will find that they can continue to secure it on the present easy terms.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I too should like to support this Amendment. Better something than nothing, and better late than never. Many people would regard this as one of the most important parts of the Bill, although it was not intended to be part in the beginning. It is unfortunate that matters such as this should be raised by the Government so very late in the day. I am sure it was as a result not of pressure from the Cross-Benches or from this side but of logical reasoning. I would hope that in future logic may have a higher priority in Government drafting.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in relation to that last point, of course, the point was raised not by the Government but by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, at Second Reading, and also at the Committee stage. The Government's view has always been, and still is, that this is not perhaps the most appropriate vehicle for this change. None the less, let me join in welcoming my own Amendment. We should be unanimous about it. It is worth doing, and it is to be done if your Lordships approve. I congratulate noble Lords on their persistence not just during the passage of this Bill but for years past, as this has a long history. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for

1741
not getting the matter to him sooner, but there has been a good deal of consultation and it was that consultation which produced the addition which required the manuscript Amendment. Better late than never. Let us hope that we have got it right this time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE Lord REDESDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Defence of contributory negligence
".In any circumstances in which proof of absence of negligence on the part of a banker would be a defence in proceedings by reason of section 4 of the Cheques Act 1957, a defence of contributory negligence shall also be available to the banker notwithstanding the provisions of section 11(1) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this on Second Reading. It is an exceptionally complicated Amendment which was argued at great length by expert and learned noble Lords. I would never dream of having the impertinence of trying to speak to this Amendment to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but I wish just to introduce this Amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I think that it is an important Amendment which takes care of something which slipped through in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. I am most grateful that this has now had consideration, and I am also personally grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for taking such an interest in this particular Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I too am grateful that noble Lords have persisted with this. I did not, despite my training as an advocate, manage to conceal my lack of sincerity as I spoke the last time on the Government line. There is no reason why I should not go public on the matter at this late stage; no one can do me any harm now. The point was worth making, and I am happy to say that behind the scenes I managed to press the point.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, may I just raise one point on this before the noble and learned Lord sits down? I have put down a change in the Long Title
1742
which I do not think is now necessary in view of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Exceptions from prohibition in section 1]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 54, line 6, at end insert—
("2A. The Post Office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this in connection with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 54, line 19, at end insert—
("7A. A member of The Stock Exchange in the course of business as a stockbroker or stockjobber.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment as well. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15:
Line 10, after ("deposit") insert ("to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the law with respect to instruments to which section 4 of the Cheques Act 1957 applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is associated with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. The first part of the Amendment is in respect of new Clause 38 and the second deals with the new clause after Clause 46, which creates for the benefit of a collecting banker an exception to the rule that the tort of conversion is one of strict liability. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned Amendment No. 16 and in my judgment he is right that if the House accepts Amendment No. 15 it will not be necessary for him to move No. 16.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, though I am sad it should take so many words to do what I should have liked to do by using only one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution:
4.42 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his kindness and attention, and to a degree his co-operativeness, on the Bill. He was not so co-operative as I should have liked, but one cannot have everything in this world. I wish to take this opportunity to raise a couple of points and I shall do so briefly because I do not desire to delay your Lordships.
I mentioned earlier the question of the loss that will be sustained by certain organisations, and I wish to recap. on that point. First, there is the question of the investment bankers. While it may not be Lord McCluskey's opinion, I believe they will sustain loss, and unfortunately an Amendment on this point moved by my noble friend Lord Selsdon was not found acceptable by the noble and learned Lord; a pity, but we cannot go into that now.
Another aspect which must be sorted out at a later stage arises from something that was told me only this morning, and that is the question of licensed institutions. I talked at some length about banking services and about how certain members of the Finance Houses Association and other organisations will be prevented from using the words "business services" and "banking business", although they can call themselves a bank when it comes to a law case. As I pointed out, they are not allowed by law to call themselves a bank.
Now this question needs to be answered: what are they in the eyes of those important people, the Inland Revenue? I am told that in regard to licensed institutions which carry on a banking business
1744
—they are not allowed to say that, although they are providing banking services—if they provide a business overdraft, there is some question whether the interest on the overdraft will be recognised by the Inland Revenue as allowable against tax. That is one of many points that will have to be taken up at a later stage, before appointed days are made.
I have not concealed my feeling that the Bill is in some ways unnecessary. I spoke of the question of the fund and a number of other aspects, but this is not the time to go at length into those matters. I simply wish to reiterate that the Bill will allow the machinery to be set up, but much remains to be done. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords who have taken part in debating the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in responding briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I would simply say, first, in connection with the question whether an institution is a bank, that any representations made between now and any date of commencement will be considered. However, I think Lord Redesdale will find the answer to his question in Clause 36(2) where what is being provided for is that:
"Nothing in this Part of the Act … or elsewhere … affects the determination of any question whether a licensed institution or other person is a bank or banker";
and then we have the words:
"for purposes other than those of this Act".
Those are the important words which I think answer his point.
On the general matter, I am grateful not only to noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings and from whom I have received letters and to whom I have written, but to the House as a whole for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill, and for your Lordships' co-operation in getting it into this form with such speed.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL
4.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Estate agency work]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, as the result of a Government defeat, the scope of most of the Bill was extended to cover business as well as substantially residential property, and the Government indicated that they might be bringing forward suitable Amendments at a later stage. The Amendments in question have been tabled. The substantive and consequential ones are: Nos. 1, 3 to 8, 12 and 13, 17 to 33, 35 and 36, and 38 and 39, and I suggest they be discussed together. They adjust the position created by the passing of the Amendment to Clause 1.
These Amendments take account of certain necessary technical changes to the Amendments accepted in Committee and of the Government view that, if the scope of the Bill is extended in the way sought, it should cover all interests in land involving a capital transfer, and that would of course include residential, commercial and other property. Apart from replacing references to "an interest in property" and "property" by "an interest in land" and "land" where appropriate, the Amendments remove the remaining references to "residential property" and "business property" and, accordingly, the definitions.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I wish on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House to thank the Government for acquiescing in the arrangements for these Amendments. The Bill as introduced into your Lordships' House related specifically and only to residential property, and the whole pattern of Amendments now set out on the Marshalled List would rectify the situation. There is one problem and that is the definition of "land". The Minister said it would include residential, commercial and other property and we
1746
shall shortly be considering the question of the definition clause. Can the noble Lord say whether the definitions either ill the Bill or in other Acts are sufficient to cover that point?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("(a)" practising solicitor" means, except in Scotland, a solicitor who is qualified to act as such under section 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or Article 4 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, and in Scotland includes a firm of practising solicitors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for not replying to the point he raised on the previous Amendment before the Question was put, and I hope to give some information later. Amendment No. 2 corrects an error made in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, tabled Amendments to include under the control of the Bill solicitors acting in the course of their profession and their employees. Following debate he made it clear that he did not intend to press his case on that occasion. The substantive Amendment was formally withdrawn, and subsection (2)(a), which excludes from control
"things done in the course of his profession by a practising solicitor or a person employed by him …"
stands part of Clause 1, but in error the attendant definition of "practising solicitor" was removed, and this Amendment restores it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interests in property]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6:
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("Sasines") to end of line 6
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")

1747
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Meaning of "clients' money" etc.]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("subject to subsection (6) below")
line 15, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 22, after ("which") insert ("in whole or in part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and Amendment No. 13 are drafting Amendments consequential on the extension of the scope of the Bill. I should be happy to explain their effect in detail if noble Lords so wish, but in the interests of speed I hope that it will not be necessary. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I feel that it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give an explanation of this matter. In view of the fact that your Lordships are under some pressure regarding time, perhaps the noble Lord can restrict his reply, but I think that an explanation would be of value to those who are to read our remarks.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I shall do as the noble Lord requests, but before proceeding I wish to reply to his earlier point regarding the definition of land. The definition of land in the Interpretation Act 1978 is sufficient to cover every type of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and other land.
I should like to deal with Clause 12 as a whole. The clause defines money taken by estate agents which is subject to the protection provided by the Bill (for example, clients' money) as contract deposits or pre-contract deposits, in-
1748
cluding in both cases sums paid in respect of connected contracts. In the case of residential property a connected contract is typically one for the purchase of carpets, curtains, et cetera, which is conditional on the transaction going through. It thus covers the case where the parties agree two separate contracts—one in relation to the property and one in relation to the contents. An example of this would be that the purchase goes through on the basis that £50 is paid for the carpets only if £10,000 is paid for the house. One of the purposes of the existing Clause 12(5) was to cover the case where the parties agree to the purchase of the property and contents in a combined contract. The main purpose of Clause 12(5), however, was wider. It was consequential on Clause 2(2)(d), which extended the Bill to cover the "corner shop" with a rack rent flat over. Given the general extension of the Bill, it would go too wide and cover money which had nothing to do with the sale of property. Amendment No. 13, eliminating subsection (5), together with Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, ensure that protection for the combined contract in cases of the type I have mentioned will be retained without extending the Bill into areas where the controls would be inappropriate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 14, line 31, after ("(a)") insert ("in whole or in part")
Page 14, line 33, after ("(b)") insert ("in whole or in part")
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 9 to 11.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Keeping of client accounts]:
4.56 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a client account not maintained by a company, a person authorised by the Secretary of State as having adequate knowledge and experience; or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this matter at the Committee stage of the Bill, when I indicated to my noble friend that I might wish to take further advice and thereafter raise it again. The present Amendment represents a slight variant in wording from the Amendment that I moved in Committee, but its substance is precisely the same as previously. Noble Lords who may wish to refresh their memories on this subject will find that the debate of the Committee stage was reported at column 905 and subsequent columns of the Official Report of 19th March.
I have no interest whatsoever in the Bill nor in the position of any kind of accountant or estate agent. I am concerned with the rights of the citizen in relation to the good of the community, and I believe that this is a principle to which all noble Lords would subscribe. On the previous occasion my noble friend made a very good trade union closed shop speech. He said that for the good of the consumer—and of course all closed shops are for the good of somebody—the Government proposed to provide in the Bill for uniformity of standard of audit of the accounts of estate agents in private practices and partnerships who under the Bill will for the first time be subject to new requirements of audit practice. A company is already provided for under the various Companies Acts. A company's audit arrangements and the standards required of its auditors are already defined in the Companies Acts.
I say in passing that in the past when a transfer has been made from one status to another it has been the practice to provide for a transitional arrangement whereby those who have previously been competent to audit accounts and who have done so may, by means of a dispensation of the Secretary of State continue so to do after the change has come into effect.
I think that when things are being done for the good of the consumer—and my noble friend said that this was wholly for the good of the consumer—we are entitled to consider at the same time whether we are doing any harm to anybody, and, if so,
1750
whether that harm which is being done is necessarily being done for the overriding purpose of the change, which in this case is this Bill. My noble friend admitted that Clause 14 of the Bill would mean that some of these auditors who are not within the classified group of auditors set out in the Companies Acts would lose work. That means that they would lose a part, probably a good part, of their livelihood. There are some accountants who do not come within the stipulated societies of accountants for the purposes of the Companies Acts who have been doing the accounts of private estate agents and partnerships for a long time. There has been no requirement up till now that such accountants should be members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or of the other bodies specified within the Companies Acts.
These accountants, like other accountants, were doing work for their clients, and the importance of what they were doing was twofold: first of all, to provide satisfactory accounts of the trading position of their clients for the information of their clients; and, secondly, to produce accounts which would form a satisfactory basis of assessment of profits. That meant to say that they had to satisfy their clients and to provide accounts which could be accepted by the Inland Revenue. Now, under this Bill, for the first time, estate agents in private practice and in partnership must have their accounts audited. That is quite understood, because they are to be required under this Bill to keep clients' accounts, as solicitors are required to do, in the interests of their clients. In the past, long before solicitors had to keep clients' accounts, unfortunate cases arose when solicitors mixed their clients' money with their own, probably squandered it or lost it, got into financial difficulties and virtually robbed their clients.
Indeed, more recently, because of the absence of any similar provision in the case of estate agents, we have been learning of estate agents who have been doing the same sort of thing. Deposits received on property purchase and other monies passing through their hands on behalf of clients have been mixed with their own, and in some cases people have lost a great deal of money. This Bill is to safeguard the position of the public in that regard, and it has my full support, as I

1751
am sure it does of all noble Lords. In another place, over many years, this Bill, or its beginnings, was introduced time and again under the Private Members' Bill procedure. The Government did not take any notice of it and would not take it on board; and for years it was frustrated from becoming law. Then, eventually, the Government decided—rightly, in my view—that this was becoming such an important matter that it should be a Government Bill; and that is how we come to be dealing with this subject now, long after estate agents themselves wanted changes made in their statutory position. The question is: Are there any conditions which seem to be reasonable to your Lordships which should be introduced into this Bill to protect those accountants who have been doing satisfactory service up till now against the sudden and arbitrary disqualification which this Bill would impose upon their clients? There are no transitional arrangements provided for here. My noble friend said that this, of course, is in line with something that was done earlier on, when insurance brokers were brought under similar conditions.
There is in existence a body known as the Association of International Accountants, and it is on their advice that I raise this matter and press it upon your Lordships' attention. This body has about 16,000 members. Those members have recognition throughout the world, which is unique in this particular respect; they sit for examinations, and they have very adequate qualifications. It would not be difficult for the Secretary of State, in identifying the accountants who may be permitted for the time being to continue to do the work they have done before and to become auditors under this Bill, to look at the qualifications of those who, while not in the closed shop provisions, are nevertheless of sufficient standing and qualification to be allowed to phase themselves out. I am not suggesting that any new appointments as auditors should be made from persons other than those covered by Clause 14; but for those who are there, for those who are already doing the job, for those who could become auditors under this Bill without any danger to consumers, and whose integrity and qualifications are really as good as anybody else's, it seems to me that this could be done without any real harm to the
1752
standards being set under this Bill. It is, I think, a serious step to take to say that as from the date of the Royal Assent, virtually, auditors who have been doing the work in the past shall be cut off from being authorised persons under this Bill.
That is really the case, my Lords. I repeat what I said at the beginning, that here we have to weigh the good of the consumer against the rights of individuals to continue their work undisturbed and unrestricted where they are qualified to do it, where they have been doing it and where their qualifications are adequate to continue until their service with their clients is terminated, as indeed others in the classified categories would be allowed to do. Therefore, I do not think it is just a small matter, any more than I think it is entirely a small matter to say that "property" means "land" or that "residential property" means "land"—and the Marshalled List is strewn with Amendments to replace the word "property" with the word "land", which I am sure it is very important to do. So I hope that my noble friend, who has had the opportunity to reconsider the matter, has identified the Association of International Accountants, which I have mentioned. I do not know whether there are any other bodies. There used to be the certified accountants, but they have now been absorbed into the authorised field of auditors within the terms of Clause 14, so the old body of certified accountants is not concerned with the present Amendment.
I hope I have explained the position clearly, and I hope I have been reasonable in putting the several considerations before your Lordships. I also hope that the House will not dismiss this Amendment unless your Lordships are completely satisfied that the overriding good of the community justifies compelling some people to give up the work they are doing, lose some part, if not all, of their livelihood, and be put at a serious disadvantage: not for any delinquency, not for any incapacity, but because the Government want, as most Governments want, uniformity. We have to be on our guard against uniformity of everything in our community life. Uniformity is being imposed on the whole community—uniformity of thought as well as of various other conditions in which uniformity is thought to be desirable for social content-

1753
ment and economic progress. I hope that my noble friend will give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
5.10 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, while recognising the genuine concern of my noble friend Lord Houghton to introduce some limited form of transitional arrangements to provide protection for those who, as he said in Committee:
"are not part of the monopolistic professional bodies which are listed as qualified within the meaning of the Companies Act"—
nevertheless, I must resist the Amendment. The Government's insistence upon defining a qualified auditor in terms of the Companies Act for the purpose of this Bill arises, not from a desire by the Government to impose a degree of "closed shoppery" by the recognised accountancy bodies but from a praise worthy desire—and one which I hope my noble friend supports—to adhere to their general policy of maintaining high standards and a uniformity of auditing requirements.
The words used in the Amendment—"having adequate knowledge and experience"— reflect the powers contained in Section 161(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1948, which permitted the Secretary of State for Trade to authorise individuals on the grounds of having adequate knowledge and experience while in the employ of a member of one of the four recognized accountancy bodies. The experience which had to be demonstrated related particularly to auditing. But the individual authorisations which the Secretary of State for Trade was empowered to make—and I hasten to add that as from April last year this power ceased altogether—were introduced not as a means of protecting the livelihood of then-existing unqualified auditors but as a means of ensuring that, at that particular time, a sufficient number of qualified auditors would be available to undertake the whole range of statutory audits.
The acceptance of the Amendment would present my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with a practical difficulty. What is adequate knowledge and experience? How do you assess it? Where do you draw the dividing line and by what standards do you set the norm?
1754
Knowledge and experience of accountancy alone is clearly not enough—the Secretary of State would need to look for the considerable length and range of experience of auditing formerly required under the Department of Trade criteria. It seems unlikely that the accountants whom my noble friend is seeking to benefit by his Amendment would have such experience. Nor, as I understand it, would it be possible to make any such authorisations of limited duration, as my noble friend implied would be the case in moving his earlier Amendment. And, if one permitted an unqualified accountant—unqualified in terms of Section 161 of the Companies Act—to undertake the statutory audit of client accounts under the Bill, could one, in logic, refuse him the right to undertake the whole range of statutory audits? Does not the need for the public to be properly protected demand the highest possible standards? It is right that high standards should be maintained. This Amendment would undermine that policy and, in my view, be a wholly retrograde step.
My noble friend referred to international accountancy. The accountancy—not auditing—work currently performed by international accountants for estate agents is not as a result of any statutory requirement and therefore no particular qualification is required. The appropriate route for the international accountants to obtain the ability to carry out statutory audit duties, which demand a high standard of competence, would be to obtain recognition under Section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948. I understand the Association's application for recognition is being considered by the Department of Trade, but it seems unlikely to satisfy the criteria for some time to come. I am sorry, but I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 [Insurance cover for clients' money]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 38, at end add ("including arrangements to which an enforcement authority nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State or any other person so nominated is a party.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your consent I will take Amendments

1755
Nos. 15 and 16 together as they both relate to the requirements the Secretary of State may lay down by regulation in relation to authorised arrangements for the cover of clients' money. The Amendments are made to take account of the views the insurance industry have recently expressed to us about the types of cover they are ready to provide. It may be as well if I repeat the relevant part of what I said in Committee on this matter—the more particularly as I understand that I slipped up in reading the statement and this offers an admirable opportunity to make an appropriate correction. The statement about types of cover read:
"Although it is in no way essential to the carrying on of estate agency work for deposits to be taken, it might be argued that the Government should not impose such a requirement without ensuring that suitable arrangements were available for any agent who wanted them. To this end a number of meetings have been held with the insurance industry, from which the following has emerged: (a) the existing indemnity schemes of the main national organisations of estate agents could be expected to continue unaffected;"—
I repeat, "could be expected to continue". In Committee, I inadvertently said "could not"—
"(b) the insurers would favour and would in principle be prepared to cover group schemes on a national or at a local level. It is for those concerned to join together to form such schemes; (c) for those unable or unwilling to join such schemes the insurance companies would in principle be willing to issue individual bonds. At a very rough estimate the cost of obtaining cover per annum would be £150 per practitioner for £25,000 with a minimum insured of £50,000 and a minimum annual premium of £300."
My Lords, it is possible that the individual bonds would have to be issued to a named person. As there has not been sufficient time since the insurance industry told us of this approach to consider and investigate the possibilities, it would be inappropriate in the Bill to tie the issue of these bonds to a specific person. Amendment No. 15, in providing the necessary vires and removing any doubts about conflict of interest, allows for the maximum flexibility in empowering the Secretary of State to nominate an enforcement authority or any other person as recipient of the bond. I would remind your Lordships that by virtue of Clause 26 the enforcement authorities are the Director; in Great Britain, the local weights and measures authority; and, in Northern Ireland, the Department of Commerce.
Amendment No. 16 ousts the general law on contracts in such a way that the depositor can claim direct to the insurer and not through the person in whose name the bond is issued. In doing so it follows in broad terms the precedent of the provisions relating to administration guarantees. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am very glad that the Government have carried out what was suggested when we were here in Committee on this Bill on 19th March. I followed with interest the correction made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, to his previous statement. The arrangements made under Clause 16 so far as bonding is concerned have not gone as far as certain societies would wish. For instance, the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers wrote to me on 30th March and said this:
"The Incorporated Society has consistently urged that the Amendments to Clauses 16 and 22 relating to (1) the extension of bonding to include all agents and not only those accepting deposit monies and (2) the mandatory introduction of regulations relating to standards of competence respectively must proceed if the interest of the consumer is to be adequately protected."
The Government have gone a very long way to assist us in this regard. I noted most carefully what the noble Lord said about our earlier Amendment in Committee which was to make the bonding mandatory. I quote his remarks in Hansard from column 916 onwards on 19th March:
"The Government have every sympathy with the insurers in this matter, and it is one among various reasons why the Government remain resolutely opposed to a requirement for universal bonding."
Had we further time and further opportunity for consultation, perhaps we could have discussed the matter further. Nevertheless, bearing in mind both the pressure of events which has arisen and the standpoint which the Government have taken up in this matter, it would be only reasonable at this stage to accept the proposition which the Government have made. I am well aware that the views held by the Incorporated Society of Valuers is not universal among those bodies outside. The Incorporated Society went on to say:
"Without these Amendments, the public would be better served by the loss of the Bill."
It is not our view that the loss of the Bill would be a consumer advantage; we

1757
believe most strongly after no fewer than 13 Bills—this is the 14th—that there has been a very considerable amount of thought given to the Bill and the question of bringing estate agents within the terms of an Act of Parliament. Further, this present Bill before us has had scrutiny on two occasions within the past six months. Moreover, it has had scrutiny by both Houses. We believe that the arrangements proposed by the Government go so far as may be reasonably expected in the circumstances.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5.22 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Every guarantee entered into by a person (in this subsection referred to as "the insurer") who provides authorised arrangements covering another person (in this subsection referred to as "the agent") carrying on estate agency work shall enure for the benefit of every person from whom the agent has received clients' money as if—

(a) the guarantee were contained in a contract made by the insurer with every such person; and

(b) except in Scotland, that contract were under seal; and

(c) where the guarantee is given by two or more insurers, they had bound themselves jointly and severally.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 33:
Page 19, line 13, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 19, Page 22, line 30, leave out "Subject to subsection (4) below")
Clause 19, Page 22, line 34, leave out ("residential property") and insert ("land")
Clause 19, page 23, line 5, leave out ("residential property") and insert ("land")
Clause 19, page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
Clause 20, page 23, line 30, leave out ("Subject to subsection (4) below")
Clause 20, page 23, line 33, leave out ("residential property") and insert ("land")
Clause 20, page 23, Page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
Clause 21, page 24, line 12, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 14, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 18, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 20, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 30, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 32, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 35, leave out ("property") and insert ("land")
Clause 21, page 24, line 36, leave out ("property") and insert ("land").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment puts right another error made in Committee—in this case definitely by myself. The Government had tabled an Amendment to add subsection (6) to this clause but, following the Government's defeat resulting in extension of the scope of the Bill to cover business and other property as well as substantially residential property, it was among a number of Amendments which I indicated to the Committee were no longer appropriate. Unhappily, I subsequently moved the Amendment in question in error but indicated I should put the matter right at Report. Here I have done it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [General Interpretation provisions]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments 35 and 36:
Page 32, leave out lines 30 to 43.
Page 33, line 6, leave out ("residential property") and insert ("land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have dealt with these Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 33, line 12, at end insert—
(""discrimination" has the meaning assigned to it by Schedule 1 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, "discrimination" is referred to in Clause 3 but the definition of "discrimination" appears in Schedule 1. Admittedly Clause 3 refers to Schedule 1 but it is to the general interpretation provision to which readers instinctively turn for definitions and if a definition is tucked away in a Schedule the reader may miss it. There are many examples in the general interpretation clause of expressions which are defined elsewhere in the Bill and repeated in that clause. I suggest that it would be helpful to readers if we gave the same treatment to the definition of "discrimination". I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I hope that the Government will feel willing to accept this Amendment. It will not alter in any way the textual substance of the Bill; but, at the same time, it will enable those handling the Bill to have a very much improved knowledge of the interpretation. I believe that this is self-evident in many past Acts that we have been considering and it is a matter of regret from time to time that the Government are unwilling to consider further interpretation which, from so many points of view, would enlighten those attempting to discover the meaning of those Acts.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, this Amendment misunderstands the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Bill and therefore should be resisted. The link between Clause 3(1)(b) and Schedule 1 is provided by the tailpiece to Clause 3(1). Schedule 1 does not assign a meaning to "discrimination"; rather it makes provision for cases where it can be said that discrimination will be deemed to have been committed for the purpose of Clause 3(1)(b). When considering a prohibition order under Clause 3(1)(b) it will not be for the Director General himself to decide whether there has been discrimination; that is solely a matter for the appropriate body or court, and it will be for the Director simply to decide whether the discrimination concerned occurred in the course of estate agency work. Under those circumstances—and I hope the situation is fully understood—I must resist the Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I find that very disappointing. I had regarded
1760
this as a purely drafting Amendment. However, this is no time to take on the Government and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 33, leave out lines 25 to 35.
In the Title, line 3, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 5 and insert ("interests in land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already dealt with this. I should like, with the consent of the House, to move Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and I think it would be appropriate for me to say a few words. I shall not read my prepared speech as time does not permit, but this is quite an historic moment. Here we have a Bill on this subject such as has not gone through for 90 years. It so happens that my honourable friend the Minister of State, who was closely associated with it as a Private Member, did his best and eventually the last Bill failed on the dissolution of Parliament. This time we are keeping our fingers crossed but I understand that another place will be only too willing to give the measure an uninterrupted passage. The Bill has been changed, but this is the attitude of the House. It has been changed and thoroughly digested, although we had some exciting times on Committee stage when many Amendments were moved at short notice, and also when certain arrangements had to be re-made.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and also those people who have written to me about this: some in favour and some not. Perhaps I should say one further thing, which is not always said. As I told the House a few moments ago, there were difficulties in getting all the data ready for the Committee stage and in passing I should like to pay tribute to those advisers behind the scenes who assisted, often at tremendous incon-

1761
venience, in ensuring that—although I did slip up on one occasion—the right information was given and all help was given to the passage of the Bill. I do thank everybody concerned. We should be quite proud that, in the dying moments of this Parliament, this Bill has gone through after 90 years.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, in his tributes to all those who have participated and who have advised us during the work on this Bill, the incorporated bodies, outside individuals and many others. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is quite right in saying that this is an historic event, to which he himself has contributed no small amount in the very considerable work which he has put into the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him personally for his many acts of courtesy and assistance.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CREDIT UNIONS BILL
Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution:
5.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I think that the House is fully aware of my long association with the Co-operative movement and will readily appreciate the pleasure with which I move this Second Reading.
A credit union is a specialist form of co-operative society which is concerned with savings and loans. This Bill has as its purpose to give a legal framework for the operation and supervision of credit unions. A peculiar feature of credit unions is that their members have a common bond: that is to say, they must already have something in common. For example, they may work at the same factory, they may live in the same community, they may have the same interests in that they are all farmers, for example, or they may all go to the same church or chapel. But
1762
they must have a common bond, which should already exist before they become members of the credit union.
There are flourishing credit union movements in many countries throughout the world, particularly in Canada, the United States, the West Indies, Latin America, New Zealand and Ireland. Indeed, this Bill that we have before us owes much to the experience we have had in Northern Ireland. When in 1969 the Northern Ireland Parliament passed its Industrial and Provident Societies Bill it included a special part in the Bill dealing with the registration and supervision of the operations of credit unions. This Bill owes much to the experience gained in administering the Northern Ireland legislation.
In Northern Ireland there are 97 credit unions with 85,000 members. They have £16 million-worth of assets and, to the best of our knowledge and belief, there have never been any losses or defalcations. In Great Britain the movement has become significant only in recent years. There are only about 50 credit unions. Ten are registered under the Companies Act, four are registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and the rest are unregistered. I think that spells out at least one reason why we should try to regulate this kind of activity.
I would remind the House that the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit strongly recommended that credit unions should be encouraged to take root here. I would also remind the House that both the bodies which are concerned with the sponsoring of credit unions want this legislation and, in their wish to have it, they are supported by the National Consumer Council.
This Bill is in effect an extension of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. Presumably we could have got the same result by having an amending Act which would have added an entirely new part to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. The Bill provides that a credit union can register under the 1965 Act—that is the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965—providing its rules comply with this Bill; providing it has at least 21 members and normally a maximum of 5,000 members; providing its objects comply with the Bill and, finally, providing its members have a common bond such as

1763
I referred to earlier. The Bill provides for the re-registration of those credit unions which are already registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. It also provides for the conversion to Co-operative societies of those who, in the absence of special legislation, have registered under the Companies Act.
Membership of a credit union to qualify for registration must consist only of individuals and those individuals must have the common bond to which I have referred, or they must be living with a relative who has the common bond: for example, husband and wife. A member must hold at least one share of £1. A society cannot insist that a member shall hold more than £5 in shares, and the maximum that can be held by a member is £2,000. Of course, with the long tradition of the co-operative movement, the practice is one member one vote, regardless of the amount of the shareholding.
There are occasions when the common bond, which must exist before membership, is broken. A person may change his employment. His common bond may have been that he worked with fellow members at a particular factory. That is one example, but of course there can be many others. The Bill provides that if the rules of the credit union permit, then he may carry on his membership, but such members shall not exceed 10 per cent. of the total. So the idea of the common bond is amply protected.
A £1 share shall, in accordance with the tradition of the co-operative movement, be withdrawable, but because of the special functions of the credit unions they must issue shares on terms which enable them to require 60 days' notice, if necessary. That, of course, is to safeguard their liquidity. Normally, a credit union will be able to take deposits only on share account; that is to say, the members will be able to take shares and make deposits increasing their shares, but that is the end of it. They will not be able, in addition, to make loans.
There is, however, one exception. Persons under the age of 16 cannot be members of a co-operative society, and they may wish to be associated with a credit union. The Bill provides that a credit union may take deposits from such
1764
youngsters up to a maximum of £250 from each, that the money shall go into a trust fund, that it shall be invested in trustee securities and that the income from those securities shall go to those who have invested in the way in which I have explained. So there are, again, ample safeguards.
There is also provision for a credit union to be able to borrow money. First, it can borrow money from a recognised bank, in accordance with the Banking Act 1979; secondly, it can borrow money from a municipal bank—and I was astonished by this, as I did not think that we had any municipal banks; I thought that when Birmingham joined up with the TSB that was the end of it, but we have eight municipal banks; seven in Scotland and one in England; thirdly, it can borrow money from the TSB; and, fourthly, it can borrow money from another credit union or association of credit unions. But the amounts that it borrows in total must not exceed one half of its share capital, except that a temporary loan from a bank can be disregarded for this purpose, with the consent of the registrar.
A credit union will be able under this Bill to make loans to a member up to £2,000 in excess of his shares, so that if a member has £500 in shares he can, with the consent of the committee of the credit union, get a loan of £2,500. If the loan is unsecured, it must be repaid within two years; but if it is secured, it can be repaid within a period of five years. The rate of interest charged must not exceed 1 per cent. per month of the balance outstanding.
Of course, a credit union will have surplus funds. According to the Bill, those surplus funds will have to be, first, in cash; or, secondly, in an authorised bank or, thirdly, in investments authorised by the registrar. Also, we hope that a credit union will have profits. So long as the general reserve of the credit union is less than 10 per cent. of the assets, then 20 per cent. of the profits must be put to general reserve. That, I think, is an excellent provision. Subject to that, a dividend upon shares may be paid out of profits, but it must not exceed 8 per cent. of the paid-up shares, or the profits could be used to give a rebate on the loans—that would be a rebate on the interest

1765
paid by those who had received loans—or, subject to a dividend of 3 per cent. on shares, a credit union can, if it wishes, devote 10 per cent. of its profits to cultural, social and charitable objectives.
The Bill makes specific provision for the taxation of credit unions. Broadly speaking, the position will be that the income of a credit union derived from its members—that is, the interest paid by borrowing members to the credit union—will be free of tax. This will form the bulk of the credit union's income. Income from outside sources, by way of investment and so on, will be subject to corporation tax at 40 per cent., which is the standard rate for all industrial and provident societies. Dividends in the hands of members will be exempt for six years and then will be taxed in the normal way.
I think that an explanation is due here. For Northern Ireland there is a provision so that dividends in the hands of members are exempt from tax. We have two problems here. First, we cannot suddenly end the provision in Northern Ireland and, secondly, we cannot treat the credit unions in Britain differently from those in Northern Ireland. So we have to have a compromise and we say, "All right. You can all have it for six years, but then it comes to an end".
The Bill makes it a condition of registration that a credit union must take out and maintain in force insurance against fraud and dishonesty on the part of its employees and its officers. This provision was introduced on Report in another place. It is intended that the provision will not be brought into effect until discussions have been completed with insurers and the credit unions' representative bodies on the amount and extent of the cover to be compulsorily required. For this reason, the Bill enables different provisions to be brought into operation on different dates. Of course, the registrar under this Bill has certain powers. I think it is sufficient to say that those powers are very similar to what he has under the Building Societies Act 1962 and the Friendly Societies Act 1974. They are the usual powers of a registrar.
I have covered the salient points of this Bill and I hope that that has been helpful to the House. The Bill received very full consideration in the other place. It was
1766
fully debated on Second Reading, three days were spent upon it in Committee where a total of 61 Amendments was put down—not necessarily carried, I should say—and on Report a further 40 or so Amendments were put down. The Bill has not been treated as being in any sense political. It has received support from members of all political parties in the other place who have been concerned with it. I hope that it will receive the same kind of support in this House. My Lords, I have pleasure in moving that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
5.49 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for so comprehensively covering this Credit Unions Bill which, as he said, is a Bill which is not really controversial. There were a number of points that people wished to improve upon, and there are certain points that are probably still outstanding. But, as he said, a compromise has to be reached and overall I think that this has been very satisfactorily accomplished.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill. We are glad that at last a legal framework has been provided for credit unions. It is important that the credit unions want this legislation. It is also important that a number of interested organisations have recommended that this legislation should be enacted. It fills a gap which existed in the legislation relating to financial institutions, and it is appropriate that it should follow so promptly on the heels of the Banking Bill, especially as it refers in places to the "Banking Act".
The noble Lord covered the question of tax. I was going to say a few words on that subject, but the noble Lord's remarks were comprehensive. It seems to be a compromise which has worked out reasonably well for everybody, although for some better than for others. Some are losing it in the end, but others are getting it for a while, and that seems to be reasonably fair.
May I sound one note of warning about the Bill. I believe that credit unions could become very large. Certain safeguards are provided, but, like Topsy,

1767
credit unions may grow. I think, therefore, that consideration will have to be given to ensuring that the size of credit unions remains within reasonable limits. I have spoken for only two minutes, which is quite long enough for me to say that we welcome the Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution:
5.52 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before your Lordships has but one purpose: to enable the Independent Broadcasting Authority to incur expenditure in equipping themselves to transmit the fourth channel television service. It will enable the Authority to apply any of the current surpluses on their appropriate reserves up to a total of £10 million. It will also enable the Authority to borrow from the Government, if it should need to do so, up to a total of £18 million.
Your Lordships may recall that in the White Paper on Broadcasting the Government indicated their agreement with the Annan Committee that, in order to keep the cost to a minimum and to avoid unnecessary delay, the IBA should be responsible for engineering the fourth channel and for transmitting the fourth channel service. The Authority came to the conclusion that, unfortunately, it had inadequate statutory powers to do so under existing legislation, and this Bill now makes the necessary statutory provision.
I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that the purpose of the Bill is quite independent of the service ultimately to be transmitted over the fourth television channel. Whatever authority eventually provides and supervises the television service on the fourth channel, the preliminary engineering work does need to be done. It is essential that the work should start as soon as possible. I would remind your Lordships, too, that the
1768
White Paper on Broadcasting stated the Government's intention to establish an Open Broadcasting Authority to provide the service on the fourth channel. The establishment of that Authority will be dealt with in major broadcasting legislation.
This Bill does not anticipate that legislation and, indeed, if any other arrangements should be made for the provision of the service, the engineering work which flows from this Bill will be equally appropriate. The estimated total cost of engineering the fourth channel throughout the United Kingdom to cover approximately 99 per cent. of the population will be about £28 million, and this Bill provides for this full cost to be met. The IBA must, of course, be satisfied that it can recover the money it has expended, and interest and depreciation. Adequate assurances to cover these eventualities were given to the Authority during the debate on the Bill in another place.
It may be for your Lordships' convenience if I explain very briefly the contents of the Bill. Clause 1 is mainly concerned with enabling the Authority to incur expenditure on the engineering work. It ensures that the continuing programme it will embark on will not be inhibited by the fact that under present legislation the functions of the Authority cease on 31st December 1981. And, of course, their functions will be extended in due course.
Clause 2 deals with the method of financing the proposed expenditure from the surpluses on the Authority's own reserves up to £10 million and by borrowing from the Government up to £18 million. It also deals with the repayment by the Authority of borrowed money and the payment of interest. Clause 3 deals with the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland and enables it to be applied to the Isle of Man and any of the Channel Islands. In conclusion, I would commend this, in our view, essential Bill to your Lordships' House and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am most grateful for that clear explanation of the Bill. It is slightly shorter and simpler than the Credit Unions Bill, and it sets out how something is to be done.

1769
The Bill begs many questions. The noble Lord said that the White Paper states what are the Government's intentions, but quite what will happen at the end of the day is another matter. The Bill opens up a large number of options, but we welcome it and wish it a speedy passage. However, I should like to point out that the money which will be used has to come from all the contractors, although it will be culled by the IBA, if that is the correct phrase to use. To a degree, therefore, the contractors will have some interest in what happens.
We shall have to see how we go on from here. The Bill provides a framework for setting up a fourth channel, and £28 million is quite a lot of money, but it is, presumably, necessary. Therefore, we welcome the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (DEEP SEA VESSELS) (SPECIFIED PORTS) SCHEME 1979
5.58 p.m.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979 which was laid before this House on 15th March 1979, be approved. The purpose of this order is to provide temporary aid to that part of the deep sea sector of the fishing industry based on Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby. In announcing his intention to seek the approval of Parliament for this scheme of financial aid my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to the changes in the traditional patterns of fishing which have come about of late. I should like briefly to remind your Lordships about those changes.
Our deep sea fleet, based on these and other ports, pioneered distant water fishing. Their vessels ranged far and wide across the North and East Atlantic to the Arctic Sea. Icelandic and Norwegian waters were as familiar to our skippers as the North Sea, but then came the movement to extend fisheries limits to 200 miles. In the end it came quickly. Although it has had its benefits, in that
1770
Eastern bloc vessels have been excluded from our waters, it has also imposed heavy penalties on United Kingdom vessels accustomed to fishing in distant waters. It has posed a serious challenge for this sector of the catching industry which has invested heavily in ships and equipment specifically designed for operations in those fishing grounds. It has also hit a labour force of fishermen skilled in the fishing techniques required in those waters and prepared to accept the hardships involved.
Consequently, the deep sea sector is currently in the midst of a difficult period of adjustment to meet a new situation. The situation is complicated by the uncertainty about the full extent of fishing opportunities which will be available to the United Kingdom once agreement has been reached within the Community on a new common fisheries policy. This latter issue is one which my right honourable friend is pursuing vigorously in his negotiations with other member States of the Community. I am glad to say that both in Parliament and in the industry there continues to be wholehearted support for his endeavours to reach a settlement that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom position.
During the course of 1978, submissions were made by the Fishing Vessel Owners' Associations at Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby to my right honourable friend seeking Government assistance on a number of counts. Each submission drew attention to the fact that in these three ports the agreements made with British Transport Docks Board had the effect of concentrating all the fish dock charges on the diminishing number of vessels landing fish. Hence the charge per vessel was rising and was becoming an unsupportable burden for each vessel owner.
My right honourable friend invited the Associations to meet and discuss their common problems and to see whether, in consultation with the British Transport Docks Board, any solution could be found that would alleviate the problems. At my right honourable friend's suggestion, the presidents of each of the Associations met under the chairmanship of Mr. C. I. Meek, the chairman of the White Fish Authority. Mr. Meek's subsequent report supported the views of the Associations in relation to the burden of dock charges but no short term solution could be found except the injection of Government aid.

1771
Mr. Meek also drew attention to a particularly serious situation which had developed at Fleetwood where a substantial reduction in the weight and value of fish landings combined with the increasing burden of dock charges had brought the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, a limited company, to the point of liquidation. The particular significance of this association is that it employs the fish landing labour force which consists of registered dock workers. I need not enlarge upon the unfortunate and damaging effects which liquidation of the association would then have upon the employment situation generally in the port and the future prospects of Fleetwood as a major fishing port.
Accordingly, my right honourable friend felt that a case had been made for providing temporary aid to the deep sea industry in the three ports. The announcement by my right honourable friend of his intention to seek parliamentary approval for this order has been welcomed by the industry. In Fleetwood, in particular, the announcement of the subsidy has been a material factor in enabling the existing Fishing Vessel Owners' Association to carry on until the end of March.
Turning now to the provisions of the order, the scheme is aimed only at those vessels for which a case for aid has been made out, namely, vessels of 80 feet and over in the three ports in question. Further, the scheme is being made under Section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. Under that section the Minister's powers are to be exercised with a view to promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish. Hence it is necessary to provide that the benefit of the subsidy should be restricted to vessels which are still engaged in voyages for catching white fish on the date when the scheme comes into effect. I am aware that the effect of this particular condition will be to exclude from subsidy a number of vessels which have ceased operating from the specified ports, or perhaps have gone out of fishing altogether at varying times since the beginning of 1978. Many of these vessels will have incurred dock charges in 1978. But it would run counter to the intentions of the Act if vessels that have gone out of fishing were to receive aid. Finally, I would wish to emphasise
1772
that this scheme is temporary and exceptional. Our prime need is to clarify the future for the fishing industry and, as your Lordships know, my right honourable friend is continuing to make every effort possible in this direction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 15th March, be approved.—(Lord Leonard.)
6.4 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I agree with him that much of the detail which he has put forward is in the interests of fishing. I wish to speak tonight for two reasons: first, the noble Lord has just said that it is "exceptional" and, secondly, that it is "temporary". As he has said, this scheme is made under Section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. That section of the 1970 Act, which was a consolidation Act, re-enacted Section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953, so I gather that the power to make schemes of this kind has been in operation for more than 25 years; but this is the first time that the benefits of a scheme made under it have been confined only to boats operating from specified ports. Because of this the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am a member, draws the attention of both Houses to the Instrument on the grounds that it constitutes an unusual use of power and is arguably ultra vires.
Section 49 is in general terms and contains no specific power to discriminate between boats operating from different ports. Moreover, all schemes under the section have been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. This might suggest that such a scheme would apply equally to boats in ports from all parts of the United Kingdom because the three Ministries are involved. But in the evidence before the Joint Committee, departmental representatives indicated the reason why it was confined to boats operating, as the Minister has explained more fully today, from Fleetwood and Grimsby and Hull, all of which I should like to emphasise are British Transport Docks Board ports. We wanted to

1773
know why this had been done. We were told that they were benefited by the scheme because they were the only ones who asked for this money. Indications of need must be looked into carefully, and if departments are right in maintaining that the section allows the making of the scheme in favour of boats operating only from specified ports, they would presumably maintain that they would also be allowed to make the scheme for the benefit of boats belonging only to specified ports and specified owners.
The policy that is to be adopted in this case, of giving benefit only to those who ask for it, might result in making schemes in favour of particular boat owners who had asked for schemes to be made in their favour. That is why the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments were rather worried about the terms of this Instrument. We saw officials but we were still not really convinced that this was the best way to proceed. What the Minister has said today has not given me much extra information and therefore, when he replies, I shall be grateful if he can say why the order was introduced in this way, why it is exceptional and what is the meaning of "temporary"?
6.9 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, for the information which he has given the House on this Instrument, while I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lady Vickers for the way she has given us her views on this important grant to deep sea fishing vessels. At this stage I think it is important to pay tribute to the fishermen who go out into the North Sea in very bad conditions. I believe that few members of the public, when they have their fish and chips, realise the dangers that these men have gone through. Also the difficulty has been with the EEC, who are eventually to come to some conclusion with the United Kingdom as to how they are going to handle deep sea vessels. Then we have the difficulty of the 200-mile inshore fishing limit. So the deep sea fishermen have been faced with difficulties.
This scheme is limited to vessels of 80 feet and over, and also to certain ports. It was interesting to note that these ports are Fleetwood, Grimsby and Hull. My
1774
noble friend being a great expert in these matters, I was not sure whether she was going to include Devonport, but I am not sure that there are deep sea vessels there. In any event, this Instrument is a temporary step, until the EEC and the United Kingdom come to a conclusion. From these Benches we understand from the Government that this is only a temporary affair until conclusions are reached.
6.11 p.m.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks, and I would wish to reply to the noble Baroness on some of the points which she brought up. The main point was the giving of consent under Section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. The Government at the time noted the observations of the Joint Committee on the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979. I am sure the noble Baroness would wish to join me in thanking the committee for their careful and vigilant examination of this scheme. Parliament did not, of course, have in mind any particular circumstances which would arise when giving consent to Section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. Since then the sea fishing industry has been beset by many problems which will be familiar to your Lordships. In particular, the difficulties which now confront the deep sea sector could not have been foreseen.
As I have already indicated, the situation which led to the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 7th December 1978, of a temporary and exceptional scheme of assistance to the deep sea fleet based upon Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby, was one requiring the most urgent attention. In considering the powers available, the Government concluded that Section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 was sufficiently widely drawn to cover the objects of the scheme before the House, and they still remain of that view. I can, however, assure noble Lords and the noble Baroness that the Government have taken full note of the comments made by the Joint Committee, and these will be borne in mind in any further scheme considered for the approval of Parliament under Section 49 of the 1970 Act.

1775
With regard to the question of vessels of 80 feet and over, the point is that they had to arrive at some line; it had to be 80 feet, 90 feet, 70 feet, and after discussion they arrived at 80 feet. The ports that have been taken into this Bill, namely, Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby, were the ports for which a case was made out and on which a decision had been made. Let me say that no convincing case for aid to vessels under 80 feet has yet been made out. In response to inquiries from associations at Fleetwood and Grimsby, the Minister has, however, made it known, without commitment on his part, that he would be prepared to have his officials examine any detailed case which may be made for assisting such vessels, but so far no detailed case has been forthcoming.
The noble Baroness asked whether ports have to ask before they will be granted consideration. I do not consider it any great hardship on any port that has its interests at heart to make submissions to the Government. If submissions are made they will be considered on their merits. I do not think it is any crushing burden on any port, if it feels that it has a case, to make a submission.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask when this order is coming into operation?
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, it is coming into operation as soon as possible. It is quite soon. I can tell the noble Baroness the exact time. It will come into effect on the day after it has received the assent of both Houses. It provides for claims to be made within three weeks of the scheme coming into effect, and payments will be made as quickly as possible thereafter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (NOISE CERTIFICATION) ORDER 1979
6.16 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords this order is intended to replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970 as amended.
1776
It carries forward most of the provisions of the old order, but widens the scope of aircraft noise certification. Rather than prepare a further amending order, it seemed preferable to begin again with an entirely new and comprehensive order.
The purpose of the 1970 order was to give effect in the United Kingdom to noise emission standards to which members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation had agreed in 1969. These applied initially to new types of heavier subsonic jet aeroplanes. These standards were later extended by the organisation to new production of older types of such jets and in due course effect was given in the United Kingdom to this extension of the standards set by the organisation.
Since introduction here of the 1970 order the organisation has adopted new and more stringent standards for new (post-October 1977) types of heavier subsonic jet aeroplanes, and introduced certain other changes. The United Kingdom now needs to give effect to these new standards, and to introduce standards agreed previously by the organisation for propeller-driven aeroplanes. The United Kingdom also needs to extend, following an earlier decision of the international organisation, the applicability of the original subsonic jet standards to smaller subsonic jet aeroplanes. It is these new standards which will be brought into effect by the order that is now before the House.
The standards which the International Civil Aviation Organisation has developed are set at levels which have been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for the category of aeroplanes to which they apply. The aviation industry in the United Kingdom has for some time known of these latest standards of the organisation, which were published in detail in July of last year; they have also known of the Government's intention to introduce them in the United Kingdom.
Like its predecessor, this order is drafted very broadly to bring within its scope whole categories of aircraft, while at the same time making provision for exemptions by the Civil Aviation Authority after consultations with the Secretary of State. It is, therefore, the order which,

1777
coupled with the associated Civil Aviation Authority exemption orders, gives the detailed and desired effect.
It is proposed that exemptions should, in general, be given to categories of aeroplanes for which there are no standards set by the international organisation. However, exemptions will not, in general, be given to non-certificated subsonic jets acquired by United Kingdom operators after 30th September 1978, nor to non-certificated subsonic jets on the United Kingdom register after 1st January 1986. Both these important steps were foreshadowed in the airports policy White Paper and are in line with the recommendations of the European Civil Aviation Conference, although in some respects the United Kingdom restrictions are a little more stringent.
Aircraft noise constitutes a formidable problem around our major airports although noise certification standards already applied should ensure a continuing improvement in the noise climate through the next decade. The Government well understand the feelings of those who live around airports and well know that they must press ahead with improved standards. In reaching international agreement on these new standards, the Government have demonstrated the importance which they attach to reducing aircraft noise, while at the same time recognising the legitimate rights of users, operators and manufacturers. I believe that these new standards offer a balance between these conflicting interests, and that they will contribute to a significant reduction in noise at most airports over the years ahead. I hope that this House will approve the new order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th March, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
6.23 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the order. I must at the outset declare an interest in this matter. I am employed by a company at Gatwick called British Island Airways which will be affected by the provisions of the order in a specific way to which I shall come in a moment.
1778
May I say straight away that everyone in the industry fully appreciates the need for regulation of aircraft noise. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, aviation can no longer trample upon the communities around airports with impunity. It is right that arrangements should be made to control the noise made by aircraft; to encourage the use of quieter aircraft; and indeed, to impose regulations and restrictions upon the older, noisier types. In that context I was pleased to note that the British Airports Authority has recently introduced a sliding scale of landing fees so that aircraft of the older noisier types now have to pay higher landing fees. Arrangements of that type, which I think are quite right and proper, will in due course no doubt encourage the accelerated retirement of those older aircraft.
There are some minor administrative matters arising out of the order that I should like to put to the noble Lord before I come on to one particular matter which affects me acutely. First, the requirement for a noise certificate is, I think, a comparatively new one, although of course aircraft have been required to observe certain standards before now. However, I wonder if the noble Lord can say whether each aircraft will be required, or is required, to undergo separate flight trials to obtain its noise certificate, or whether it is possible, and will be possible, for the Authority to issue a noise certificate arising out of one set of trials to all aircraft of the same type? That seems to me to be a desirable administrative arrangement. Secondly, can the noble Lord say from what date certificates will be required? Thirdly, what arrangements are being made to carry out the necessary flight trials? Finally, what charge will be made for the certificates? All those are comparatively minor matters of which I told the noble Lord in advance and I hope that he will be able to answer them now.
However, there is one particular matter as regards which I have a special interest which I must declare to your Lordships. The company for which I work has for a number of years, together with its predecessors, operated a comparatively large number of newspaper and mail flights from Gatwick and those contracts have, in some cases, been running for as long as 20 or 25 years. Until now there has been no major difficulty in obtaining the necessary

1779
permission to operate those flights from Gatwick. Last year, which was the first year when restrictions were imposed on propeller aircraft operating from Gatwick, after some initial consultation and discussion with the scheduling committee at Gatwick Airport, the necessary number of movements was forthcoming, but this year a major problem has arisen. Out of a total of 1,250 night "slots" (as they are called) required for the operation of these mail and newspaper flights—all of which, as I have said, have been operating for a number of years—it has been possible to secure only 472 slots. Thus, at the present scale of operation, the mail and paper flights will have to cease around the end of May.
The difficulty has been caused because certain types of movement at Gatwick have been re-classified as quiet and have thus taken some of the quiet movements allocated to BIA. Furthermore, a number of new operators will appear at Gatwick this summer, some of them under encouragement from the Government to move from other airports, and the difficulty therefore is that the total number of movements available—namely, 3,500—is not sufficient to cover the existing requirements of established operators, having regard, as I have said, to the new operators that have arrived.
I hope that the Government will consider the implications of the restrictions they have placed on the movements at Gatwick—both the so-called quiet movements and indeed the so-called noisy movements. I ask whether they would not feel it right that whoever is operating the newspaper and mail flights, especially the mail flights—because, of course, it may not always be the company with which I am connected—ought to be exempted from the control of night movements? They would, of course, I agree, have to give some undertaking to operate quiet aircraft only; and any exemption granted should be available to anybody operating the mail flights. But, unless the Government can see their way to making some exemption in this matter, there will be a real difficulty. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assist.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I find it a little disturbing that Article 6 which
1780
deals with the issue of noise certificates is only permissive and is not mandatory because it says that,
"The Authority may issue a noise certificate … if it is satisfied that the aeroplane complies with the applicable standards specified".
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I have the honour to serve, was not very happy about that and no doubt the noble Lord has seen what the Committee has said on this point in its Fifteenth Report. I should have thought that compliance with the required standard was the only issue in the case, and that if the authority was satisfied that the standards were complied with by the aircraft it would invariably grant a certificate and no other consideration of any kind would enter into the matter. That is why I would submit that Article 6 ought to have been mandatory, and not just permissive.
We cannot amend an order. All we can hope for is that the noble Lord when he replies will say that he can envisage no circumstances in which the authority, if satisfied, will not proceed to issue a certificate. If he will go further, and say that in his opinion it would in those circumstances be improper for the authority not to issue a certificate, it will become perfectly plain to the authority that it is intended that it should treat the order as virtually a mandatory order, and not as something which is permissive, so that it can refuse a certificate on some whim unconnected with the standards specified and the compliance with them by the aircraft.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, may I thank both noble Lords for the way in which they have received the order, but more especially for having given me notice of their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, first, asked whether each and every aircraft would have to be tested. The answer is: no. The issue of a noise-type certificate following successful completion of flight trials on the first example of a type will allow noise certificates to be issued to subsequent examples on receipt of evidence that they are similar in all relevant respects to the aeroplanes which gained the noise-type certificate. Further flight trials will not then be required.
His second question was as to the date from which the certificate is required. Although the order will come into im-

1781
mediate effect, in practice no aeroplanes at present flying in the United Kingdom will immediately require a noise certificate if they did not formerly need one. The precise date on which a given aeroplane will require a noise certificate will vary according to its class. The first class of aeroplane to be affected by the order will be that of the light propeller aeroplanes produced after 1st January 1980.
The third question was: what were the arrangements for flight trials? Flight trials are normally carried out by the constructor and witnessed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, this order will not result in a sudden increase in the number of flight trials needed, for the reasons which I have already mentioned. The fourth question was about the charges. The Civil Aviation Authority will continue its present practice of charging in relation to the work carried out prior to the granting of a noise certificate, but making no specific charge for the granting of the certificate itself. In the case of an aeroplane of a type for which the CAA has previously granted a noise certificate, no charge is currently made. The Civil Aviation Authority has power to make such a charge under Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, but there is no present intention to exercise that power.
As the noble Lord undoubtedly appreciates, the question of night restrictions at Gatwick and Heathrow is distinct from that of noise certification. This order will have no effect one way or the other upon the arrangements for night restrictions. The overall levels of night movements at Gatwick have been set as part of the Government's long-term strategy to reduce disturbance from aircraft movements at night, although the allocation of movements to individual airlines is a matter for the Scheduling Committee. The Government believe that there could be a general relaxation of these controls only if this was shown to be justified by the results of current research into the relationship between aircraft noise and sleep disturbance.
I turn now to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Article 6(1) is not a mandatory provision; it is enabling and is in line with other provisions in air navigation orders which provide that the Civil Aviation Authority may issue certificates and licences if
1782
satisfied as to the relevant matters. Examples of such certificates and licences are certificates of airworthiness and flight crew licences. Although the Government will undertake to reconsider the use of the word "may" as opposed to the word "shall" in this article, they believe that this review should cover all aviation legislation where the Civil Aviation Authority is empowered to take action, and that it would be unwise to make the change in isolation, dealing only with this particular certification. The Civil Aviation Authority will always give a noise certificate if satisfied as to the requirements.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY AIR ACTS (APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
6.35 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order amends an order by a similar name made in 1967. That 1967 order did two things: it applied the Carriage by Air Act 1961 to carriage by air that is not subject to the Warsaw Convention; that is to say, it applied it to non-international carriage and to the carriage of mail and postal packages. Secondly, it applied the Warsaw Convention to international carriage.
The order before the House is concerned with the first only; that is to say, non-international carriage. The amendment which it makes to the 1967 order is a technical one and is very simple. It seeks to substitute 58,000 International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights for 875,000 gold francs as the limit of the carrier's liability in respect of any passenger killed or injured, and it makes the equivalent substitutions in the case of baggage and cargo. This amendment is desirable because under the amended articles of the International Monetary Fund there is no longer an official link between sterling and gold, but there is a link between sterling and the Drawing Rights. Two Protocols to the Warsaw Convention—which, as I have already explained, is concerned with international carriage—were adopted in Montreal in 1975. They substituted

1783
amounts in IMF Special Drawing Rights for amounts in gold francs and the Carriage by Air and Road Bill, which this House recently passed, gives effect to Protocol No. 2.
To give effect to Protocol No. 1 will require another amendment to the Carriage by Air (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, but that amendment will be brought forward when Protocol No. 1 has been ratified by enough States—and enough is 30. However, there is no need for us to wait until there are enough States to apply the new provision to international carriage; we can proceed at once to apply it to non-international carriage. That is what this order seeks to do. The advantage in making that change now is that we can apply to non-international carriage the new procedure for converting into sterling the sums specified in the order.
At the present time the sterling equivalent is specified by order. A new order is made from time to time to keep pace with the change in the value of sterling. The current sterling equivalence order made in January 1978 by reference to the average value of sterling in November 1977 specified 37,726 as the equivalent of 875,000 francs. Under the amended Application of Provisions Order the Treasury will certify the current value using the International Monetary Fund daily rate. This will ensure an accurate and up-to-date result instead of the out-of-date approximation used at present. That is the principal reason why we are going ahead with this amendment affecting non-international carriage, instead of waiting until we can deal with international as well as non-international carriage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th March, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while once again declaring my interest in this matter, I would say that the proposal before the House is eminently admirable and desirable, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AND BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with a privilege Amendment and with other Amendments; the privilege Amendment considered and agreed to; the other Amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.