ESTATE AGENTS BILL

HL Deb 06 March 1979 vol 399 cc77-154

6.22 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Estate Agency work):

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("residential").

The noble Earl said: Those of us who have read the proceedings on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place will know that it is fair to say that the Government took some credit for introducing a Bill which had had a record of some 90 years of unfortunate lack of success. I think there have been 14 attempts to get a Bill such as this through Parliament. The Government took credit because at last they had produced a Government Bill which was primarily to protect consumers' interests in relation to estate agents.

The noble Lord who is replying on behalf of the Government will understand that there is considerable disappointment, not only in this House but also within the professions—and I believe that there will eventually be disappointment among the consumers—that this Bill is really a mouse purporting to be a lion. Its protection is limited to the point of what some might be inclined to call castration. It relies heavily on future ministerial regulations which many of us feel should be written into the Bill. It includes very wide-ranging— some might say draconian—powers which the Director General of Fair Trading will have, and, perhaps worst (and here I come to the first Amendment) its protection covers only a proportion of the consumers. I believe that proportion which it does not cover have a right to expect to have protection under this Bill.

The first Amendment would widen the scope of protection from the purely residential case which the Bill at present covers to those transactions which estate agents carry out in commercial and industrial property deals. This is an Amendment which was the subject of discussion in another place, but I do not apologise for repeating the point because it is very important. The Government in another place said that it was really now too difficult to widen the scope, and indeed possibly to rewrite the Bill, to cover the commercial work of estate agents. They went on to argue that the commercial consumers were well able to look after themselves. If that is really the argument, I would suggest, with great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that it is a very ill-informed argument.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of shop-owners and small businesses which will not have the protection of this Bill because there is no residential content in their premises. Up and down the country they purchase properties for their businesses. They save, they scrimp, some may say they even gamble with a lot of mortgage debts round their necks, second mortgages on their houses with their banks. Their skill, as the noble Lord knows, is not in the property but in their business. They rely on the estate agent for their protection. Why should they not be protected under this Bill. Why is the house-owner singled out, after 90 years, to be the only favoured son under this Bill? Why will the commercial consumers not have the protection of the deposits provided under Clause 16? Why will they not have the protection of competency under Clause 22? And perhaps just as important, why will they not have the protection of disclosure of interest of estate agents under Clause 21?

I think there is a case for including commercial properties and premises under this Bill. I think it is a strong case and it is undoubtedly a consumer case. It is certainly a case which the professional bodies wish to see written into the Bill. So I hope that tonight the noble Lord will be able to indicate a change of mind by the Government. I would add that this Amendment does, of course, lead to a number of consequential Amendments, which the Chairman will have seen and which would, of course, reduce the length of our Committee proceedings if accepted. I beg to move.

Lord GISBOROUGH

Although the Bill has been described as a consumer protection measure, there are many cases outside the realms of residential property where protection is just as important. It has been stated that business premises will come within the terms of the Act if they contain a substantial element of residential property—for example, the high street shop with living accommodation above. However, the limitation to residential property is too restrictive in that it does not bring within control other transactions involving commercial property where protection is needed, such as the activities of business transfer agents, where there is no residential element in the property. We are not talking about ICI, we are talking about small business, about the man who buys a shop without living accommodation above. It is just as important that he should be protected as the residential owner.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

In rising to support my noble friend, I should like first of all to apologise to the Committee for not being present at the Second Reading, and at the same time to declare an interest as a practising estate agent. I know that one aspect of the Government's reply to this Amendment is going to be the question of finance and public expenditure. I would ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government what is going to be the extra cost involved if the ambit of this Bill is widened to include commercial property and business transfer agents, as the Amendment would require the Bill to do.

Lord SWINFEN

I should also like to rise to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on this Amendment. However, at the same time I must declare an interest as I too am an estate agent. As drafted, the Bill provides protection for commercial property when combined with residential property, but in modern planning practice more and more commercial and industrial property is divorced from residential property. The small business man needs the protection of this Bill whereas the large conglomerate, such as ICI, has its own experts. The small businessman relies, and must rely, on estate agents to give him good advice.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I take it that in moving Amendment No. 1 the noble Earl will deal with Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 subsequently?

The Earl of KINNOULL

Yes.

6.31 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

First, this is a consumer protection measure—I want to emphasis that. I do not want to get involved in another Second Reading speech because, in point of fact, the noble Earl tended to give some indication of devoting himself to a Second Reading speech. However, in relation to this Amendment, which would extend control to wholly and substantially business premises, I should perhaps make it clear that, as it stands, the Bill covers broking activity in relation to certain mixed properties. These are essentially properties bought by the individual as a home in which business is carried on such as a house with a smallholding, a flat above a shop, a building designed or converted into a number of small flats, a guest house and residential property with a business element. These are properties where in the same transaction there is a capital transfer relating to the business assets, goodwill, et cetera, and the property is let at a rack rent. This approach is consistent with the main aim of the Bill to protect the individual buying or selling his home.

There has been an interest in extending control to cover all types of property on the grounds that limitation of control would appear to license those not covered to misbehave. It has also been argued that control in the Bill should be extended to protect at least the individual sinking his capital in the small wholly commercial property—for example, a small corner shop.

The main beneficiary of the wide extension proposed would be the businessman or industrialist who is well able to look after himself. A recent survey has shown that a majority of businessmen are well satisfied with the work of the agents they employ, and extension of control under the Bill would seem to be control for control's sake. However, extension to cover the small businessman only has been considered, but no satisfactory definition could be found to meet the narrow area which did not mean that the wider one was also caught. I would emphasise that it has been considered, but no satisfactory definition has been found. For that reason, the Government are regrettably unable to accept the Amendment. That is all I can say on the Amendment at this stage.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the question how much it would cost to extend the cover. Of course. that is a very difficult question to answer but I shall hazard a guess, backed by a certain amount of support from behind. Roughly, it would cost about £l million.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Can he also tell me what the extra manpower required would be, or is that too difficult a question at this stage?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Quite honestly, with the enormous number of Amendments presented to me in a matter of a few hours, it is both physically and mentally impossible to answer that. However, I shall certainly make some inquiries in order to obtain an estimate, and then I shall write to the noble Earl and keep him fully informed. I would hope to get that information before the Report stage.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has given a very disappointing reply. He has just hinted that a great many Amendments have been given to him at a minute's notice. The word "yes" is just as easy and quick to say as the word "no". I should have thought that, in order to start off the discussions on the Bill in the right sort of spirit, this is one area where the noble Lord could have given an undertaking to look at the matter again. He has said that the Bill is a consumer protection measure. You are a consumer if you deal with business premises just as much as if you deal with a house, and that consumer is just as entitled to have the law pay attention to his needs as anyone dealing with a house in which he lives.

On behalf of the Government the noble Lord is introducing legislation which will hit the Government on the back of the neck unless they look at this sort of Amendment more carefully. If there is one sort of protection for a private house and no protection at all or a different sort for business premises, then confusion will be created as to where people stand vis å vis their estate agent and their general advisers. If there is any need at all for protection, I should have thought that it was needed where most of the business is done; that is, in relation to business premises as well as with residential property.

The noble Lord said that the people who would benefit if we introduced premises other than residential premises are usually the large conglomerates which can look after themselves. Most people who have residential properties can look after themselves; indeed, often they are much more able to do so because they are concentrating upon their property. If protection is needed, it should not be for any one section of the community: it should be for all sections. If, even though because of the terrific number of Amendments with which he has to deal, the noble Lord has had to give this rather disappointing, negative reply now, he could on second thoughts say that before the next stage he will look at the matter again to see whether we cannot deal with the whole field instead of with a part of it—which is the proper thing to do—it would be much more satisfactory from his point of view as well as from the point of view of this Committee.

Lord AIREDALE

If the Rent Acts were capable of separating small dwellings from larger dwellings and treating the smaller dwellings differently, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to single out small businesses and treat them differently from large businesses. Does the Minister remember that the Trade Descriptions Act was to be called the Consumer Protection Act?—but the title was changed largely because it was realised that the Act protected the small businessman just as much as it protected the customer on the other side of the counter.

Lord JANNER

I was rather amused when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred in the manner in which he did, to the distinction between residential properties and business premises. I see the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, smiling. He will probably remember that in the various Acts that have been passed year after year—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was in the other place at the time, will also remember—this distinction has been quite inevitable. I would suggest that, if the noble Lord has any leisure time at all, he should sit down and look at some of the rent Acts, the leasehold reform Acts, land Acts et cetera. He will see that what he is at present driving at has been found to be impossible in other contexts.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

Before my noble friend replies, may I, through him, correct a statement that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? The Trade Descriptions Act does not distinguish between large and small businesses— it protects the lot.

Lord SWINFEN

The distinction has been made between large and small businesses. This Bill is designed to ensure the honesty of estate agents. Is it not important that estate agents act honestly towards their larger clients, or customers, as well as their smaller ones? The larger clients may well have their own advisers who can help them: but if their advisers are not as good as they should be, they can have a very much larger fall than the small persons and possibly bring down a large number of shareholders at the same time.

6.41 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

Before the noble Lord replies, I should remind him of what occurred in another place. His right honourable friend the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was clearly in a serious dilemma over this. We on these Benches fully recognise what a difficult dilemma it was; hence my noble friend's Amendment. It is interesting to see what the noble Lord's right honourable friend said. I refer to column 31 of the report of Standing Committee E. He said: We attempted to find a precise definition of what was residential property and what was not, but we found it impossible to achieve any worthwhile result". A little further on he said: In the end, therefore, we resorted to a definition of residential property which contained the words' wholly or substantially'". So much of Clause 2, on which Clause 1 hangs, depends on those vital words "wholly or substantially". The Minister in another place conceived those two words in the wider context to mean small shops with residential premises, and the type of premises known as a mixed hereditament, which all my noble friends on this side of the House are anxious to ensure are included. We have had assurances in another place that they are included, but alas! it does not necessarily depend upon what the Minister has assured another place but upon the interpretation of the courts.

To the layman—and I am a layman—the words "wholly or substantially" appear to be an unsafe base on which to concern oneself with a wide number of different types of property. I believe that the Government's dilemma is much greater than they are willing to admit, because the Minister also said something—and I refer to an earlier statement of his at column 6 in Standing Committee E—which reveals his true difficulty. He said this: I am anxious to keep the limits to the sale of property because that is the area where we have a consultative document and discussions with the professions". That may well be, but of course the consultative document, as we heard on Second Reading, has really been set aside. At this stage I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the case for the Amendment.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

With the leave of the Committee perhaps I might reply comparatively briefly. I would repeat that this is a small Bill for the small consumer. It is not the Bill that some people had in mind. It is a Bill heartily supported by the Consumers' Association; it is a Bill supported strongly by the National Association of Estate Agents. In the main, the Bill is popular except in those circles where those concerned want to bring in the question of business protection.

As I have already said, the matter has been considered but no satisfactory definition could be found to meet this narrow area of the small businessman, which I believe is what noble Lords have in mind. I think it would be readily accepted that the large business people, ICI and people like that, are quite capable of looking after themselves. If business premises have a substantial residential element, there is no doubt whatever that they are included. I do not quite know what noble Lords are after, except that they want big business organisations to come in. If it is a question of a small business purchased, then of course that is a question of definition. So far we have been unable to find a definition. That is the point. I hope that we shall not have unnecessary delay on this because, as noble Lords will remember, it was the wish of those on all sides in another place that this Bill should receive a speedy passage in your Lordships' House.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

The noble Lord said that no satisfactory definition of small business has been found, or that it was beyond the wit of his Department.

Could he say whether some sort of scope in terms of turnover would do? If we are talking basically of very small businesses, corner shops, I should have thought that a turnover figure would have been more easily arrived at than some form of technical phraseology.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

It is difficult to jump up and down in Committee, but I cannot say any more than I have already said. If noble Lords can find a definition to meet the little man, then of course we must consider it. Perhaps the noble Earl might bear that in mind for another stage.

The Earl of KINNOULL

If it would help the noble Lord, he is in fact allowed in a Committee stage to speak as many times as he likes, and there is no question of him having to apologise to the Committee for speaking two or three times. I am unhappy with the noble Lord's reply. I should like to thank all those who have supported this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls talked about confusion. I think that that is exactly what it will cause if we have a split responsibility under this consumers Bill. My noble friend Lord Swinfen talked about the honesty of estate agents. That is another bull point argument. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, did not bother to consider Lord Airedale's comment which really was: Could we not define small businesses by rateable value? I think that is an excellent idea. I was hoping that the noble Lord would say that he would look at this again, but he has not. It is all very well for the noble Lord to argue that we need this Bill and that it needs a speedy passage, but we must get it right. I should like to leave to the Committee the decision on this Amendment.

6.48 p.m.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Caithness, E.	Drumalbyn, L.
Airedale, L.	Cathcart, E.	Ebbisham, L.
Allan of Kilmahew, L.	Colville of Culross, V.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	de Clifford, L.	Falkland, V.
Amory, V.	Denham, L.	Falmouth, V.
Gisborough, L. [Teller.]	Long, V.	Somers, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Lyell, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gowrie, E.	Macleod of Borve, B.	Strathcona and Mount Royale, L.
Gray, L.	Mottistone, L.
Greenway, L.	O'Neill of the Maine, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Penrhyn, L.	Swansea, L.
Harvington, L.	Rankeillour, L.	Swinfen, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B.	Redesdale, L.	Vernon, L.
Hunt of Fawley, L.	Rochdale, V.	Vickers, B.
Inglewood, L.	Runciman of Doxford, V.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Killearn, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.	Windlesham, L.
Kimberley, E.	Sandys, L.	Winstanley, L.
Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]	Selkirk, E.	Young, B.
Kinross, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Bacon, B.	Kirkhill, L.	Snow, L.
Blease, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Collison, L.	Leonard, L.	Stone, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
David, B. [Teller.]	Noel-Baker, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gaitskell, B.	Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Glenamara, L.	Phillips, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hale, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Whaddon, L.
Hamnett, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	White, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Raglan, L.	Willis, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Rhodes, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Janner, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

6.56 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Before we move to the next Amendment I should perhaps make it clear that a number of consequential Amendments will have to be accepted following Amendment No.1 having been carried, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has a copy of the list. In saying they will have to be accepted, I wish to make it clear that we accept them under the strongest protest. We are resolutely opposed to the Amendment that has been carried and I must register my protest so that the Committee knows how we feel on the issue.

Lord SANDYS

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the range of Amendments which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1 having been carried, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for furnishing me with a list of those Amendments, which we have not had time to circulate among members of the Committee. The consequential Amendments which follow on the Division which has just taken place are Nos.11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 53, 54, 55, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 79, 80 and 81.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I thank the noble Lord for reading out that list and I confirm that that is the position. As I said, we accept those Amendments but with the proviso that we are resolutely opposed to them and wish to register our strong protest.

6.59 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, after ("acquire") insert ("let, rent, license").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Minister for having tabled this Amendment so late: the Committee stage has followed quickly on the Second Reading and, living 250 miles away, the post takes a long time to reach me and return. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In Committee in another place strong representations were made that the Bill should cover rentals and leases. The Minister of State promised to reconsider the position, but in the event no Government Amendment was tabled on Report.

Deposit taking by letting agents is an area where abuses can all too frequently occur and the sums involved can be considerable. Attention is drawn to the fact that the upper end of the furnished letting market is largely outside current legislative control in that the majority of properties involved have rateable values higher than those covered by the Rent Acts. Rents of such properties, particularly in London, vary from £60 to £200 or more a week. Deposits asked are often a minimum of 10 weeks rent in advance, and this amount at the end of the tenancy is often dissipated by dilapidations charges. I am advised that this is a problem, and that these abuses are not controlled elsewhere; and the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to regulate the situation. I beg to move.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

I should have thought that there is much force in this point. The opening words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill state: The purpose of the Bill is to impose a measure of control on certain activities of estate agents with a view to affording protection to users of their services". I maintain that a person involved in letting or in arranging a licence or a rent is more in the hands of the estate agent than when he is acquiring a property, which is the point that the Government have already accepted. Generally speaking, such a person when acquiring a property has the extra protection of the solicitor who is handling the conveyance, but there are many instances in which questions of rent and the arranging of a licence do not go to the solicitor but are left more or less subject to the advice of, and within the control of, the estate agent. If we really want to give protection from people who are not capable of giving advice, it is more essential to make certain that this is done on the renting and the licensing than even on the acquiring, because in matters to do with the rent and the licence the normal protection afforded by a solicitor does not seem to be present. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite already has this matter in mind. I can almost see the glint in his eye. Perhaps he is going to look at the matter again with a view to conceding some of the points that my noble friend has made.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

There is indeed a glint in my eye, but it is not connected with what the noble Lord had in mind—rather very much the opposite. Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 seek to extend the control to broking activities in relation to letting, renting, and licensing of residential property. The Government made some investigation about the possibility of extensions to this area as a result of discussions in the other place. Extension would alter the nature of the Bill, which aims essentially to protect the consumer. First, the known abuses are abuses by the landlord, and not by the agent, and existing legislation for which the Department of the Environment is reponsible provides for action against landlords. Secondly, the member of the public buying his house does not have the opportunity to choose the agent or middleman with whom he deals and who also acts for the vendor. Whereas in the field of letting, renting, et cetera the agent is not a middleman of this kind, there is no thought but that he is acting for, and under the control of, the landlord.

When we come to Amendment No.39, relating to Clause 12, to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I shall be explaining why extension of control to protect money in this field would also change the nature of the Bill as a whole. As was the case with the previous Amendment, to amend the Bill to include this provision—as is requested in the Amendment—would mean a considerable addition to manpower and would put demands on Government resources, particularly at local level where the main burden of enforcement falls. Apart from anything else, the moment is not propitious for adding to public expenditure, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. In any event this is not a case where the estate agent is mainly responsible. He is the agent of the landlord, and it is the landlord who is responsible, and there is already provision for dealing with landlords. Therefore, I reject the Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I wish to ask the noble Lord about one point. The value of the Amendment lies in the question of bonding. I have in mind the kind of case in which a tenant is asked to lay down a fairly hefty deposit. Deposits are governed by law, as I think the noble Lord has explained. In some cases there are very large deposits, and they are held by the agent as, I imagine, agent for the landlord. They are held on the basis of the argument that subsequently there may be dilapidations, or telephone or electricity bills may arise which, when the tenant disappears, the landlord has to pay.

That is the situation on one side. On the other side the agent holds the rentals on behalf of the landlord and perhaps does not hand them over very quickly. In the Bill we are looking for protection for the consumer, and the consumer is both the landlord and the tenant. I believe that there is an argument here that the matter should be looked at again. I should at the very beginning have disclosed my interest professionally as a surveyor. I apologise for not having done so, though I have disclosed the interest on previous occasions.

Lord SANDYS

From these Benches I wish to agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and to say that we are anxious to make a positive contribution to the Bill, and to improve it where we can so that it will pass to another place in a better condition. It is our contention that the centre of the Bill consists of Clauses 12 and 16. It is consumer protection. It protects the client's money. However, the Government, in examining the construction of the Bill, have not really found the solution to the dilemma to which I referred earlier. I believe that the issue raised in the Amendment should have further consideration. I hope that at this stage my noble friend might think fit to withdraw the Amendment, while the Government for their part might feel willing to look at it in greater detail.

Lord GISBOROUGH

The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, hit on the point here when he said that in this kind of transaction there are no solicitors to look after the lessees. Very often the lettings are made to people who arrive in a town either from abroad or from another town far away. They may come to London from Newcastle or wherever, and when they return, having been stung, it is very difficult for them to proceed against the agent or whoever they feel has taken their down payment unfairly. I hope that the noble Lord will consider looking at the Amendment again. I should like to withdraw it at this stage, but I may well raise it on Report—

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment perhaps the noble Lord opposite will give an undertaking that he will look at it again. In view of the arguments which have been put, the noble Lord may feel that he is in a position to do that, and that may be helpful to the Committee.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

The noble Lord has a very mischievous character, as I know only too well.

Incidentally, we shall be dealing with the question of bonding later, and so we need not raise it at this stage. In the case of an estate agent who collects rents on behalf of a landlord, if he hops-off" —to use the phrase—with the money, it is the landlord whom he has robbed, and it is the landlord who is responsible. Furthermore, if the landlord himself acts in an anti-social manner, that is covered by the Department of the Environment legislation. That is the position. Certainly we can have another look at this matter, but I do not hold out much hope. In fact we can all have a look at it, and we shall see what happens at the next stage.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Will the noble Lord deal with the position where a tenant offers a deposit which the agent holds? I understand about the rent, but what about the deposit?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Is the noble Earl talking about the deposit on buying a house?

The Earl of KINNOULL

The case occurs where you take furnished premises and you pay a month's deposit, usually, which is held by the agent in lieu of possible future dilapidations or electricity bills, telephone bills and so on.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

As I understand the Bill on the question of clients' monies, there is a provision in a subsequent clause of the Bill that a register is to be kept of clients' monies and that there must be a separate account. There is that degree of protection; so when we are talking about clients' monies I think that money in the sense that the noble Earl has suggested would certainly be covered.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

The noble Lord reiterates that it is only the landlord and he does not matter all that much. That is what he seemed to suggest in terms of him not getting his rent. Of course the landlord matters. He is just as much entitled to the protection of the law as is a tenant. But it is not only the landlord who is affected by this. I beg of the noble Lord to read the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum. Apart from the collection of rent and all the technical things that they have to deal with, one of the objects—indeed, the thing that makes me interested in the Bill at all—is that we are trying to see to it that we do not have any "phoney" estate agents about the place, and that people who carry the title of estate agents are reputable people who can be trusted. As my noble friend has said, certainly on renting and letting generally, new people come into a town, and they are not themselves in a position to know of the reputation of somebody whom they may entrust with the job of negotiating for them or of working out whether or not the terms of a rental agreement are right or whether they are having obligations put on them which they ought not to have put on them. If we are going to start giving protection at all, they are the people who need the protection of the law, if we are going to make it a law, to see that the people who set themselves up to give that sort of advice have passed the test, as far as the law can make it a test, of being bona fide people who can be trusted. I am saying that it is needed more in renting and letting than in acquiring, for the very reasons I have put forward.

I should like to feel that the noble Lord is going to be enthusiastic when he says that he will look at it again, because when, in your Lordships' House, as in another place, we use the term "we will look at it again", we do not necessarily mean that we as individuals will look at it again—there would not be much purpose in that—but that the Government, who have all the advice behind them, can invariably, if they have the enthusiasm, find an answer to these sort of things. I believe that the noble Lord is interpreting this Bill much too narrowly. If it is going to be effective at all, it has got to be a little wider than the noble Lord is at present describing it. This particular Amendment may look small, but I believe that more problems will arise from renting and letting than from actually acquiring. That is why the noble Lord should enthusiastically look at it again, and get some return from the advisers whom we pay to give that sort of advice to the Government.

Lord SWINFEN

Is the noble Lord not aware that the "cowboys" in the estage agency world operate basically in the sphere of letting furnished and unfurnished accommodation to young people who cannot afford to lose their money and who are just beginning to make their way in the world? They are very often people who have just left school and have just left home for the first time.

Lord RAGLAN

I wonder whether I may say something on this, apologising for the fact that I was not here for the discussion on the first Amendment, so that my point may have already been made. It seems to me that the Title of this Bill (which, of course, is something which we discuss normally at the very end of the matter) leads one to believe that the Bill contains much more than in fact it does. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, are talking about matters which are normally within the competence and purview of estate agents, broadly speaking; that is, property without its being residential property, and looking after letting, renting, licensing and so forth. What the Government are trying to achieve in this Bill is merely the regulation of house agents, and not the regulation of estate agents. If I may say so, I think many of the Amendments to this Bill which have been put down by the Party opposite would probably be of enormous relevance to a Bill which dealt with estate agents broadly, but not to one dealing with house agents. I am wondering whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could have another look at this with a view to explaining that this Bill really is to do with house agency, and not at all with estate agency as landowners, landlords and so forth generally agree it to be.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

That is the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord opposite has spoken at great length. I have already given an indication that we will look at this. But I want to repeat that, generally, money held by estate agents for landlords is landlords' money—nobody, I think, will dispute that—and there is no stakeholder relationship there. It is the main object of the Bill to protect stakeholders' money. Furthermore, the purpose of the Bill is to protect money entrusted by the public to estate agents, not to protect landlords against commercial risks associated with their agents. That is the main point we are arguing about. As I have said, certainly one can look at it again, but I say again quite definitely that there is very little hope of being able to do much about it.

Lord GISBOROUGH

Before I withdraw this Amendment—and I am grateful that the noble Lord has offered to look at it again—I should like to put the picture of somebody who comes over from abroad to take premises at, say, £100 a week rental, and is asked £1,000, perhaps, as a deposit. If the tenant is going to go away at all, then at the end of the tenancy the £1,000 is not owed to the landlord; it is owed back to the tenant less any dilapidations. This is the point. Now, if the agent then declares that the dilapidations are £800, the poor tenant goes away with only £200, whereas probably the dilapidations were only, perhaps, £100 or whatever. So I think that it is the case for the lessee rather than the owner of the property. At any rate, I withdraw the Amendment.

Lord AIREDALE

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, drew attention to the Explanatory Memorandum. It is curious and interesting that paragraph I not only refers to prospective buyers and sellers of residential property", but, in line 2, refers to certain activities of estate agents with a view to affording protection to users of their services". Of course, landlords and tenants are just as much users of their services as are buyers and sellers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 3. 4 and 5 not moved.]

7.18 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with, I think, a very important aspect of the Bill, and I think it will win the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. What the Bill does under Clause 1(2),as the noble Lord will know, is to define those people practising as estate agents or doing estate agency work who will not come within the scope of the Bill. The three categories are mentioned in subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c). Subsection (2) (a) refers to solicitors; subsection (2)(b) to credit brokers and subsection (2)(c) to insurance brokers. I think it would be true to say that there has been universal disquiet in the professional world—and not only in the professional world; I think in the estate agency world, too—that it is very odd that you should get a Bill which is protecting the consumer in relation to estate agency work and then, suddenly, that part of the operation should be excluded from the Bill.

The two obvious things which are lost, from the consumer's point of view, are, one, "bonding" and the other, under Clause 22, "Standards of competency" I would direct attention to the standards of competency. In Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, with a name like his, would know, the Scottish Law Society actively encourage their members to practise as solicitors and estate agents—and, indeed, to put up a board saying so. It is not done in the South, perhaps to the detriment of the Law Society here. It would be fair to say that in Scotland the majority of residential sales are handled by lawyers and solicitors. It is possible for an honourable young solicitor to set up his practice in, say, the fair city of Perth, to have all the right probity, integrity and ethics; but not to have professional experience, or even experience, in house sales.

I think there is a grave gap in this Bill with the exclusion of solicitors. I can understand the bonding argument because they are automatically bonded by their own membership rules. But there is this important Clause 22 which talks about standards of competency. The same applies to credit brokers and insurance brokers; indeed, more so, because these two bodies have less experience in property than solicitors. I would hope that the noble Lord will not be adamant on this because there is a good case to include them in the Bill.

Lord JANNER

I hope it is not necessary for me to declare an interest in this matter. I am about to complete 60 years as a solicitor, and I am really amazed at the suggestion that has been made here, which implies that the rules which are utilised by the Law Society for law purposes will lead to the kind of confusion that the noble Earl was suggesting. I know, of course, that one can get the wrong ideas about some professional regulations but the noble Earl does know a fair amount about this subject—certainly sufficient to be able to try to convince us, and, sometimes, to convince us, that he is right. He knows as well as I know that the restrictions which exist at present so far as solicitors are concerned are much more stringent than the regulations that are being imposed or (shall I say?) being introduced for his profession. Just imagine! You will have two sets of disciplinary regulations instead of having one.

Let me ask a question that he will perhaps answer. Would the noble Earl prefer to have the solicitors' restrictions as a whole rather than the ones which are being proposed for his own profession? If he will answer it without prejudice (let me put it that way) I am sure that his answer to that must be, of course, that that would be absurd. He has raised one or two points. The question of the Scottish solicitors has nothing to do with this at all. This is not concerned with Scottish solicitors at all.

Lord SANDYS

I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but may I respectfully point out that this is a United Kingdom Bill and that it applies to Scotland. Hence, as Scottish solicitors do handle property, it could easily concern a great many Scottish solicitors.

Lord JANNER

I do not think you will find it covers the solicitors' profession as far as Scotland is concerned. Solicitors at present are, anyway, under strict regulation in Scotland as well as in England. In my view it would be entirely wrong that you should have two separate sets. This is a profession which has existed for years and against which nobody can find any real complaints. Of course, there are complaints, and those who have been in the other place hear many of them; but that is not the point. The point is that they cannot find any flaws in the disciplinary provisions.

Secondly, with regard to Scotland, it is an entirely different kind of business. Those who know solicitors at all, anyone in this House who has gone to a solicitor, will know this. Sometimes some untoward circumstances arise. For instance, sometimes a client asks his solicitor to sell a place or to advise him, and the solicitor may have another client who wants to buy it. But these are rare occasions. They are not the kind that the estate agents deal with. The main feature of a solicitor's job is to carry on with solicitors' work. That is what they do. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this. He must see the disadvantages of having two separate sets of regulations.

Lord HALE

I would have not intervened at this point to make this look like a Law Society "do", or something like that, were it not for the fact that I do not quite know where we have got to.

The Bill certainly applies to Scotland, and certainly it was implicit in all the discussions that there were practices in relation to estate agency conducted by Scottish solicitors and, as I understand it, it was implicit in the negotiations that Scottish solicitors were not to be inferfered with in that activity. That I thought was a clear position. Now as I read the noble Lord's Amendment today—and unfortunately I, like many others, did not see it on the Marshalled List today—it seemed a measure which, as far as England was concerned, was really designed to bring solicitors into some of the restrictive propositions of the Bill and without extending it.

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, on Second Reading specifically said in the course of the discussion that he was satisfied about what had been said about solicitors; and I thought that the matter had been disposed of. So I came in in some difficulty. I have listened to the discussion and I was greatly impressed by what was said on Amendment No.1,and I am not without sympathy. Sometimes, perhaps, I vote for the Government too often. On this question, one has to reconsider from time to time. Certainly I already regret one vote I have given today, but not on that. So far as this Amendment is concerned, if the noble Lord looks carefully I am sure he will see that this is going right outside the negotiations. So far as English solicitors are concerned, when they are acting in direct connection with a client they are subject to the most rigid provisions. Incidentally, they have in the course of the past 20 years, I think, by judicial decision, been subjected to an action for negligence in respect of almost every single activity which they carry on in the course of their profession. They contribute to the insurance fund which was demanded by the Law Society. It is fair to the Law Society to say—and I do not often go out of my way to say such things—that as an ex-member who gets a free newspaper from them (which is a very good one indeed) and some very nice courtesies, everyone who has dealt with the Law Society in this matter knows that they have been completely enlightened and generally quite unbiased in the matter. They are there to protect the interests of solicitors to a certain extent they often protect them by suggesting they should remedy grievances; and, indeed, they have done that over the years.

The clear meaning of the Amendment, as I understand it, as my noble friend Lord Janner has said, catches solicitors under a dual discipline. As the Law Society themselves say, it can get them almost by mistake because a solicitor, in carrying on his wide activities, is not always talking to a client about a lease, a tenancy or a disposal of property. When he has finished dealing with his client in respect of one transaction the client almost invariably stops and wants to talk about something else if he is a regular business client dealing with conveyancing. He may say: "Have you any money to lend on mortgage? I have a friend who wants some property, do you know anything about it?" He may want to talk about some building. In areas such as the place in which I live, he may realise that the special laws of the Dulwich College Estate, and so on, involve certain obligations on which he may have special knowledge and he may be perfectly happy to discuss these issues. The same applies to almost every one of the leasehold estates.

So one is going to have a solicitor subject by statute to a form of restriction and discipline which arises specially because he has done something in an Act which was not intended to apply to solicitors and which has the word "solicitor" and the words "Scots solicitor" in because it is found that some rare practices come within the purview of the Act. During the course of discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was saying how valuable it might be sometimes with an inefficient or unreliable agent that the client would have the services of solicitors in due course to deal with conveyancing matters following a sale.

I am getting confused about this. I am telling the Committee the absolute truth when I say that the Law Society rarely troubled me and perhaps only sent out a speedy letter. But I could tell from the letter that they sent that it was strong enough to make me look at it and realise they had, as I thought, a point. It might be tragic if an Amendment of this kind was carried under a misunderstanding because it would really undermine the practice of the measure.

Lord SWINFEN

This Bill is for consumer protection. Under Clause 22, standards of competence can be laid down not as a solicitor or any other profession but as an estate agent. Why therefore should solicitors, and those professions covered in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this clause, be exempt from complying with the provisions of this Act? If they are going to act as estate agents they should have the standards of competence that can be expected of an estate agent by the general public. It is a disservice to the public as a whole to exempt people from this Act because they are members of other professions not necessarily akin to that of estate agency at all. I must therefore support—

Lord JANNER

Will the noble Lord permit me? Will he be good enough to say what real differences of a strong nature are not imposed upon solicitors already which are not covered by this Bill? Why is it not realised that in the main it is because of the help that solicitors have given that the Act has been produced? It is because of the fact that for years and years the solicitors' profession has carried on in a way which has practically a complete control of its members. Why does he want to confuse the position?

Lord SWINFEN

I am not trying to confuse the position, I am trying to simplify it. Solicitors, as are the professional institutions dealing with the land, are well able to control the honesty of their own members. But at the moment estate agencies can be started by anyone at any time without any qualifications. Under the provisions of this Bill, minimum standards of competence in estate agency can be laid down by the Minister. Solicitors are not trained in estate agency as such. Very often matters of planning and other uses have to be considered when advising a client on property matters, and estate agents should be competent in this; but solicitors I am afraid not necessarily so. They are competent in the legal aspects but not in the planning aspects.

Lord HALE

So far as North of the Border is concerned, I understood that it had virtually already been agreed that the existing practice should continue. I know nothing about North of the Border. I do not know the reasons for their decision on the referendum. I do not know the reasons why we are now told that it is still being discussed after being clearly rejected. I do not know the reasons why we are being told that the Government might rely on some support if they decide to try—and I am quite sure they will not—to betray the undertaking as contained in that Act. It is all very complicated and I cannot speak for Scotland; but the noble Lord can speak for Scotland, and so far as Scotland and so far as family solicitors were concerned I understood it was agreed. The Law Society agreed that it is not the practice in England; they do not want to lay down arbitrary rules because there is the same difficulty in the arbitrary rules. They have no intention of going into this. The noble Lord can hardly mean that if a solicitor is sitting in his office and every now and again takes a step or procedure which would bring him within the general ambit of Clause I of the Bill, he should then be brought under some educative training.

Quite frankly, it really does not make sense at all. Solicitors at the moment are trying to familiarise themselves with the law of the Common Market, with the disposal of property abroad, with company law abroad and so on, and they are going through a tremendous re-educative process. I forgot to mention—I must—apolo- gise to the noble Lord—that they are at the moment under investigation as to their competence in everything, as it were. There is a Royal Commission sitting to consider the whole question of the services of the two branches of the law. I think it is implicit that, with questions arising as to the fusion of two branches of the profession, the noble Earl's Amendment might in due course catch barristers. I do beg him in the circumstances to say that he will not press this Amendment.

Lord GISBOROUGH

The exemption for solicitors was for the benefit of Scottish solicitors who deal in estate agency work. This has been extended to the whole of the United Kingdom by this Bill. Solicitors are covered by their account rules, and that is why I said what I did at Second Reading. Since then, I have come to think that perhaps they are not subject to a declaration of interest, rules of interest on clients' accounts and rules of competence. For this reason, there is probably no justification for their exemption. In Scotland, the title of "solicitor and estate agent", which was mentioned, is now often adopted; but there is no reason why English solicitors should not gradually take over this same function and advertise themselves as solicitors and estate agents.

The duties and requirements of a good estate agency go far beyond a solicitor's rules of good professional conduct. One may take the case of a young solicitor who is fully versed in the law, has an impeccable accounting system and is fully trained, perhaps even fully trained in estate agency if that comes into his course. But I am advised that the experience of estate agents is enormously important and it is just not good enough to know the theory that so many bedrooms in such and such a place are worth so much. The experience of what the market is doing is of enormous importance, and very often a solicitor may not be aware of this, particularly if he is buying and selling houses outside his own particular area.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I have a sneaking feeling that somewhere in the drafting of this Amendment there has been a degree of professional jealousy involved, and I am not necessarily referring to solicitors. To meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the Government have never accepted that the function of merely transferring residential property requires any qualification other than basic honesty and probity. Generally speaking, my noble friends behind me have really put the case: solicitors acting in the course of their profession and their employees have been excluded from control under the Bill because the consumer is already protected by the full disciplinary control provided by the legislation which applies to solicitors in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In these circumstances, to subject the same person to comparable controls for the same work would be unreasonable, wasteful of resources, and, finally, would create a legislative absurdity.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a solicitor acting in the course of his profession may be involved in arranging the sale and purchase of residential property only incidentally to his work as a solicitor (for example, when acting as an executor in probate); and solicitors and their employees who engage in estate agency work in the course of another business are caught by the Bill. In Scotland, where estate agents have begun to operate only in comparatively recent years, solicitors continue their traditional function of carrying on business as an estate agent. The area in which the two parallel sets of control will bite is therefore limited at present.

If it were justified, the fear that differences between the two sets of control would put estate agents at a competitive disadvantage as compared with solicitors would certainly weigh heavily with the Government. It is, however, difficult to assess whether in practice the resultant balance favours one side more than the other. To take some examples, the hurdles on entry to the profession which apply to solicitors do not apply to estate agents and would be inappropriate to the type of activity covered by the Bill. The requirements placed on estate agents under the Bill to state their charges in advance do not apply to solicitors, but an estate agent can make scale charges, however much or little work he does, whereas a solicitor's charges must be reasonable and can be taxed by the taxing master.

Where competence is concerned, the Bill permits the introduction of minimum standards applicable in the case of a partnership to a minimum number of partners only, by reference to practical experience and, in addition and as a substitute, by reference to professional and academic qualifications. By contrast, solicitors are required to have both experience and professional qualifications of a much higher standard than the minimum level envisaged under the Bill and every member of the firm must be qualified; like estate agents, they can have unqualified employees. It is also worth noting that a solicitor struck off or suspended by the Law Society for reasons relating to property transactions could, under Clause 3 of the Bill, in certain circumstances be banned by the Director from starting up as an estate agent. None of this suggests that estate agents will be at a particular disadvantage, even if at some future date the prohibition on solicitors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland engaging in estate agency work proper were to be lifted. These considerations apart, the time and place for changing the control of solicitors by the Law Society would be in any amendment to the solicitors' legislation and not in the Estate Agents Bill. In any case, as has already been pointed out, there is a Royal Commission on the legal profession which is currently sitting, and it would consequently be premature to make any changes at present.

To sum up, quite apart from objections of principle to changing the controls exercised over solicitors by the Law Society in an estate agents Bill, acceptance of these Amendments would result in a dual control on solicitors, would not help the consumer, and would be of little, if any, advantage to the estate agent, I strongly urge the Committee to reject these Amendments. I am speaking to Amendment No. 10 as well as to Amendment No. 6.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I expected that one would arouse the wrath of solicitors in this House over this Amendment. If I may say so, though perhaps it is discourteous to suggest it, this was professional jealousy or perhaps just a subtle red herring by the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government. One has, of course, enormous respect for the Law Societies of Scotland and England. From the consumer's point of view, they have done a tremendous service, and indeed their members also do a tremendous service. But what they are not qualified for, quite frankly, is to be valuers. That is the simple argument. I do not intend to press this case on solicitors tonight, but I would ask your Lordships to look carefully at this when we reach Amendment No. 8 and to see whether credit brokers and insurance brokers have the same protection. I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would support me on that.

I would add one final point. I think it is a little unfair to say that if the solicitors were brought into this Bill there would be two sets of regulations for them: so there would be for the professional bodies acting as estate agents. We have nothing to fear and I do not think that the solicitors would have anything to fear; but I do not intend to extend the argument any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart)

In calling Amendment No. 7, I should advise your Lordships that if it is agreed I obviously cannot call Amendment No. 8.

7.50 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, leave out lines 1 to 10.

The noble Lord said: The Government have not been prepared to make any concession on the exclusion from the scope of the Bill of work done by credit brokers, insurance brokers, surveyors and valuers. It is important that the Bill should apply with full force to surveyors and surveys for valuation. Surveyors and valuers should be obliged to give information to clients of prospective liability and to declare a personal interest, and they should be subject to minimum standards of competence. Incompetent advice from surveyors who are not members of the RICS or the ISVA is a serious problem, which sometimes reflects badly on the estate agency profession as a whole. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that where insurance brokers, surveyors or valuers are involved with their aspects of estate agency, they should be as subject to adequate standards of competence, personal interest rules and disclosure of interest as are estate agents themselves. They should also be obliged to disclose the nature of their fees. Surely, it would be preferable to strengthen the Bill by applying it to all sections of the community, than to discriminate against one small section of society; that is, estate agents. I beg to move

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

If I may be permitted, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which are all related. The first two Amendments, Nos. 7 and 8, would bring into control credit brokerage and insurance brokerage where there are already similar controls under other legislation. As in the case of Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 in relation to solicitors, these Amendments would impose a dual control on the same person in relation to a particular type of work, without any additional benefit to the consumer. They would merely impose additional and, perhaps, incompatible obligations on their activities. From the estate agent's point of view, there are, in my view, no grounds for considering that their exclusion puts the estate agent at a competitive disadvantage where the credit or insurance broker concerned might, in the course of his business, carry out estate agency work as defined in the Bill.

Amendment No. 7 would also extend control to survey and valuation work done under a different contract from that relating to estate agency. It would, in fact, bring under control the separate structural survey or valuation carried out by the estate agent for a fee, as distinct from the work done in the course of estates broking where the work involved in surveying amounts to the measuring up et cetera of rooms and making a judgment as to a price at which a house is to be advertised. The Amendment would bring under control professional work provided as a separate service from estate agency activity caught by the Bill. The activities raise entirely separate issues from those subject to control under the Bill.

In relation to the last Amendment, No. 9, the Bill is intended to apply only to active participation in the process of introduction. The exclusion under subsection (4) relates merely to the publication of an advertisement; for example, by a newspaper, or similar dissemination of information. I am sure that extension of control to this kind of case would be unrealistic. I hope that your Lordships will accept that these Amendments are ill-considered and should be rejected on the grounds that they could not benefit either consumer or estate agent.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I find that reply extremely disappointing. I should like to save the time of the Committee because, in a way, the noble Lord has taken a broad brush to these Amendments which we are discussing. I should like specifically to talk about credit brokers and insurance brokers. I have nothing at all against them. I am sure that they are extremely skilled and honourable in their line of work. But to say that, from the consumer's point of view, they are really qualified as estate agents, when, from the consumer's point of view, they are setting out as insurance brokers, is very confusing. They do not have the same strong case that the Law Society had, and I genuinely hope that the noble Lord will look at this again. He said that they are covered under other legislation and I assume that he means by bonding. But I am not talking about bonding. I am talking about Clause 22 which ensures a standard of competence, and that is what the consumers will want to see.

Lord SANDYS

We return once again to the problem of how this Bill is to apply, and we have been told that all those involved in insurance brokerage and credit brokerage are specifically excluded —just like that. There is a very serious fault which lies quite a long way back. I refer to the consultative document, which aimed initially to promote a system of licensing for estate agents. As I understand it, the thinking on that did not comprehend either credit brokerage or insurance brokerage, but I shall have to refresh my memory on that document. When the document was set aside and the Government adopted this Bill, which is very largely the Private Member's Bill promoted in the last Session, considera-ations made earlier were again set aside. My noble friends have brought out very real arguments here. There is a problem in the application of Clause 22, and it would be very much to the benefit of the Committee if the Government would agree to look a little more closely at this important Amendment.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

There are no grounds on which I can justify saying this, but, on the other hand, I wish to be reasonable and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. I do not think there is any point in giving an undertaking on this Amendment. The Bill is quite specific on the subject and, at this time, I cannot hold out any hope of reconsideration. It could happen that, between now and Report stage, we might be in a position to have further thoughts, though I rather doubt it. I do not want to be too hopeful on this. The advice that I have just received is that credit brokers are controlled by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I understand that noble Lords will appreciate this point. They are subject to licensing by the Director-General of Fair Trading, which can be a more severe control than control under the Bill. That is an incidental point. There is a problem with dual control of solicitors and credit brokers. But if it will help the Committee, I shall certainly say that we could look at the Amendment, but I should not be honest if I said otherwise than that I do not think there is much hope of it.

Lord SWINFEN

I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one question. There are a number of credit brokers and insurance brokers who also carry out the business of estate agency at the moment, and advertise themselves as carrying out the two businesses. If they stop advertising the estate agency side of their business, and just call themselves credit brokers or insurance brokers but carry on with the business of estate agency, will they be exempt from the provisions of the Bill?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I cannot readily answer that question on the spot. I should think that if they ran an estate agency as well as doing the other work, they would have a separate department and the same man would not be both a credit broker and a mortgage arranger, as well as being an estate agent.

Lord SWINFEN

In very small firms, the same individuals would probably do both kinds of work.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I cannot give to the noble Lord an im- mediate answer to that question. It is a rather difficult point. However, I shall certainly get an answer to him.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that at least he will look at this point again. Before I withdraw the Amendment, however, may I say that those surveyors who are not members of the Surveyors Society—and there are a great many of them—are quite capable of inflicting extremely heavy losses on a purchaser. I am thinking in particular of advice which is ill given regarding subsidence. A house can be perfectly all right one moment and then subsidence can destroy it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment gives me an opportunity to ask the noble Lord to have a look at the two cases which we have discussed, for they are very important. The noble Lord said that the Director-General of Fair Trading issues his licence to these two bodies under the Consumer Credit Act. What I presume he means by that is, that if there is a complaint from a consumer on an estate agency matter, it will come within the remit of withdrawing a licence. If that is so, I do not have an objection; but I am advised that it is not so. If the noble Lord could look at that point and be a little sympathetic towards our very real concern over trying to make the Estate Agents Bill a little better, I should be grateful. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

The noble Lord has raised a certain point, which will be looked into; he will not expect me to give an on-the-spot reply. I shall look into it and, if possible, will advise him before the Report stage. Apart from that, I have already spoken on this Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: In carrying property advertisements, newspapers are duplicating some of the most important functions of estate agents. This is an area in which abuses are far too common. It is important that tests of competence should be applied to advertising representatives who assist vendors over the wording of advertisements, for this is an area in which skill and experience are required. I am advised that there are many cases of misleading advertisements. They cause a great number of people to visit houses, and those people are then biterly disappointed by the inaccurate description of the houses.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I dealt earlier with this point. I am conscious of the fact that noble Lords are working at a very late hour. I cannot go beyond what I have already said.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No.10: Page 2, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SANDYS

I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I asked the Government at this stage what is their prospective programme. We have been sitting in Committee for nearly two hours. I believe that I am the only person who has been fortunate enough to be furnished with a copy of the grouped Amendments. We have completed Clause 1 but we have a substantial way to go before we reach the end of the Schedules. With 36 clauses in all before those Schedules, I am wondering whether the Government intend this evening to proceed to a certain stage, or until a certain time, or whether they intend to have an intermission, or what?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

This is surprising. Noble Lords will know that I received an enormous number of Amendments at very short notice. I have almost literally been sweating blood in the process of trying to get adequate answers at short notice. Now noble Lords want to pack up early. Somebody indicated that I have got Scots blood in my veins. In that case, I can be a very determined character. I cannot indicate how late we are likely to sit, but I shall try to have consultations. We shall go as far as we possibly can and then perhaps we will reconsider the matter. It is now five minutes past eight. Shall we say that when we reach nine o'clock and have got halfway through the Bill we will reconsider the position?

Lord AIREDALE

I believe that we are entitled to some consideration. Is it not the case that the Social Security Bill, which appeared on the Minutes that are available to us only today, was put before this Bill? Until today we expected that the Committee stage of the Estate Agents Bill would be taken very much earlier. We really must put a stop to the situation which seems to obtain, that anything which is labelled "consumer protection" comes on late at night.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My heart beats very sympathetically with noble Lords, but the point is that the spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench and I do not arrange the business. There is another medium, known as "the usual channels", which arranges the business. I have nothing to do with it. The Second Reading of this Bill was taken very late in the day, but there it is. Perhaps those who arrange the business were over-generous in their estimation of the enthusiastic support for the Bill which emanated in another place but which does not exist here. I am sorry.

Lord SANDYS

I take issue with the noble Lord. Clearly there is enthusiasm for the Bill in this House. I hesitate to repeat what I said earlier; namely, that we on this side of the Committee are using every endeavour to assist the Government to produce a better Bill. Our view on this side of the House is that if the Government can promote a programme which will facilitate the better management of business it will benefit everybody. I do not know whether or not my noble friends will be satisfied. If, however, the Government are to reconsider the matter at approximately nine o'clock, all I can say is that I have asked the question and they have given an answer.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Interests in residential property]:

8.8 p.m.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney)

I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 11 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 12.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Amendment No. 11 is not moved.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

Amendment No. 12 is not moved. I understand that as Amendment No. 11 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, I cannot say what I wanted to say on this Amendment.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I thought that the noble Earl was moving Amendment No. 12.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 11 was not moved. I called Amendment No. 12.

The Earl of KINNOULL

There has been a slight muddle. I should have withdrawn Amendment No. 10 which dealt with solicitors. I apologise to the Committee. Paragraph (a) should have been left in the Bill instead of being withdrawn. I should have said that Amendment No. 11 was consequential. My problem is that I did not take a note of the long list which my noble friend read out. I do not have a note and it would be very helpful if I had one. It is quite difficult at this late hour always to be totally alert.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I am sorry about the list, but I had to get it out at very short notice. A copy was addressed to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who passed it on to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. As soon as possible we shall get a photostat copy. Time did not permit because the whole thing has been rushed. I am sorry about it.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Earl said: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 16: Page 3, line 2, leave out ("residential") Page 3, line 15, leave out ("residential") Page 3, line 19, leave out ("residential") Page 3, line 25, leave out ("residential").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move.

On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of CAITHNESS

Perhaps this is an opportune moment to bring forward some of the points I intended to mention on Amendment No. 12. From what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, said earlier, if Amendment No. 1 is rescinded in another place, Clause 2(1) will come back into the Bill. Therefore, if it is appropriate, I should like the noble Lord to tell us exactly what the Government mean by the word "land". It can be argued that a farm is land which is enjoyed or occupied with a house, particularly if that land is in hand. Therefore, this Bill could extend to a 500 acre in hand farm. Whether or not that was the intention of the Government, I do not know. Similarly, if a landlord has to sell off an agricultural cottage that is subject to an agricultural usage as decreed by the Council, he might well have to sell off some land with it to make occupation of that cottage a viable exercise and therefore to contract the sale. Is this what the Government want or, as I believe is the case, do they want to limit it to a definition similar to that in Section 29(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1965?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I am grateful to the noble Earl because he wrote to me about this and I have been able to try to get a more detailed answer for him because, as he is fully aware, in the Bill itself the words are: any land which is, or is intended to be, occupied and enjoyed with a dwelling shall be treated as part of the dwelling". Those are just simple words, but the noble Earl has a more complicated point in mind. The answer, so far as I can give it to the noble Earl, is that the issue is essentially how much land there has to be with a dwelling before it ceases to be property of the kind to which the Bill applies. Section 29(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1965 lays down one acre or such larger amount as is required for the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The context is the exemption from capital gains tax for an individual's only or main residence.

The Bill lays down no hard and fast rule. Each case must be considered on its particular facts. The amount of land which would normally be occupied and enjoyed with a castle in Scotland is far greater than, for instance, with a flat in central London. In practice, the fact that the edges are blurred is unlikely to be significant. In the case of capital gains tax the issue would be whether relief was available or not. In this case nobody would suffer if, in a doubtful case, the agent concerned complied with the rules laid down in the Bill. The reputable and conscientious agent is unlikely to find that the Bill impinges on him very much anyway. I hope that meets the point raised by the noble Earl.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply but I fear that we may have to come back to this at a later stage.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work]:

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 17: Page 3, line 40, leave out ("or violence").

The noble Lord said: It seems strange that it should have been thought right to specify conviction of an offence involving violence as grounds for an order declaring an agent unfit. At best, the issue is an irrelevant one; at worst, it seems to be particularly insulting to the estate agency profession that it should be included. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

In replying to the noble Lord, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which are related Amendments, if that is acceptable to the Committee. This is all part of the mysterious list that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has not yet received. A basic intention of the Bill, is that the Director should by reference to clearly specified grounds be able to consider whether it is in the interests of house buyers and sellers that the estate agent should be able to continue in practice. In doing so, he will be able to look in the round at the fitness of the estate agent and consider whether the public can properly put their trust in him.

The view that it is wrong to punish a person who has already suffered a conviction by removing his livelihood is not one which can be sustained where in the public interest the aim is to ensure that only those fit to engage in estate agency work should do so. Double jeopardy in this sense is a fact of life, for instance, where professions are controlled. There are examples in the field of liquor, gaming, betting, consumer credit and the law, to name but a few.

If the first Amendment, No. 17, were accepted and carried, the Director could not, for instance, consider acting against an estate agent who was convicted of rape or housebreaking. It can be argued that an offence of violence goes to the character of a person and that those convicted of certain offences should not be allowed in the course of business to enter other people's private houses. It is in my view right—indeed, I would say that it is essential—for the Director to be put in a position to act in the event of a conviction for violence. The Director is, however, under no duty to act because there has been a conviction and I can assure your Lordships that there will be no question of the issue of a banning order for an offence of violence which cannot be regarded as indicative of a character deficiency.

Where sex or race discrimination are concerned (Amendment No. 18), complaints about estate agents are by no means unknown and, indeed, the Commission for Racial Equality is in the course of investigating a number of cases. Should there be resultant findings, it would be anomalous for the Director not to be in a position to consider whether the estate agent was fit to continue in practice. I would argue that it is important that discrimination should stand as a trigger event if the public is to have reasonable protection. From the estate agents' point of view, provisions in the Bill as it stands will make it easier for estate agents to withstand pressure from their clients to discriminate as they will be able to indicate that such action could lead to the loss of their livelihood.

Amendment No. 19 is unnecessary as Clause 30 already requires my right honourable friend to consult with representative bodies before making an order specifying practices as undesirable. I hope that the Committee will reject the first two Amendments, Nos. 17 and 18, as undermining the necessary protection for the consumer, and the third Amendment, No. 19, as superfluous.

The Earl of KINNOULL

We are dealing with a very serious clause in this Bill, the clause where the Director-General may issue an order taking away the livelihood If a professional person. I must admit I did not quite follow the noble Lord when he said that the Director would not do this in the case of violence if he considered it was a character deficiency; I thought that was what the noble Lord said. There is a grave worry about this. This was a subject which was discussed in another place and I do not think all the points were satisfactorily answered.

The kind of case we are going to be dealing with must be a complaint to the Director by a consumer against an estate agent who has done something right outside the sphere of his professional responsibility. What I do not understand, and I hope the noble Lord can reply to this specifically, is whether that complaint about something right outside the professional capacity of the estate agent be construed as something the Director should look into and might act upon. If that was the case, I think that would be monstrously unfair. In small communities you get jealousies and complaints, and this weapon could be used against an estate agent. When I say "weapon" I do not mean that strongly. I understand that, if a case of violence was reported to the Director, it could trigger off the Director's use of this power. What I do not know is whether such a complaint would be a reason for withdrawing the licence of the estate agent. Turning to the Second Amendment, which is dealing with discrimination, I think this is also a very worrying matter to include in this clause. We already have two Acts, so far as I know, which deal with discrimination, the one on sexual equality and the other one. It strikes one that this is a totally unnecessary duplication of a power which is already in legislation, and one really wonders why it should be included in this clause. This is a subject which could be quite volatile. One might have a perfectly genuine case of misunderstanding by someone who has come to our shores, who is not British, and who learns from his solicitor that he has power to complain to the Director. It might be found that in fact it was not the estate agent who was displaying any discrimination, but it was his client. I think this question of discrimination is something we ought to look at again, if not tonight at another stage. It is a very worrying power in a fairly worrying clause.

Lord SANDYS

I share the anxieties and the beliefs of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. Here we are at a formative stage of a piece of legislation. It is very interesting to look at what the Parliamentary Commissioner has to say in his report for 1978, reporting on matters in other spheres, admittedly, but in the broad field of what has happened over legislative practices and how Bills have become, as it were, part of the tapestry of life in this country. He has some very interesting comments to make at page 8 of this report. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull may have already seen this. He says in paragraph 27: It may be of interest to describe some of the basic causes of maladministration as I have found them. Naturally, in any large organisation—and each major Department is in itself a large organisation, let alone the Civil Service as a whole—there is bound to be individual error … Then he goes on to say in paragraph 28: With some notable exceptions, however, I have found that the more serious cases I have had to deal with have had deeper roots. It is either that there have been changes in administrative systems, arising perhaps from new legislation, which have been ill-prepared, or that systems have become so complicated as to baffle not only the public but sometimes the officials as well".

Lord AIREDALE

I am surprised I must confess at the expression used in paragraph (b) "has committed discrimination in the course of estate agency work", as if that was in itself an offence or some quasi-offence. To begin with, exercising discrimination in some circumstances could not possibly be regarded as unworthy. If two prospective purchasers come along and the seller asks the agent's advice, "Who do you advice me to deal with?", the agent might say, "Well, I should say A is perhaps financially stronger than B, so I would favour A"; or he might say, "A is a British subject living here and B is from abroad, so I would tend to favour A". Well, there is discrimination, but nobody could suggest that there was anything improper in the agent giving that advice.

What does (b) really mean—" committed discrimination"? There is no qualifying adjective—"unfair discrimination", which would lead one along the road as to what is intended. If what is intended is discrimination which is referred to and made an offence in other recent Acts of Parliament, I would have thought those acts of discrimination should be stated in (b) by reference to the Acts of Parliament concerned. But simply to say "has committed discrimination", as if that was some kind of offence, I should have thought really quite extraordinary

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, straight away, I would draw his attention to the fact that "discrimination" is defined in Schedule 1. The word "discrimination" used in the Bill is a convenient handle, if I may put it that way. I would also add that the Director would not in law decide that an estate agent was unfit on the basis of an offence which was not relevant. I accept that this is a very sensitive matter, because we all hold the view that nobody should be kicked down because of something they have done. But, of course, there are times when, in the case of a certain offence and a conviction, it might be in the public interest that the question of whether or not the person should be allowed to continue to practise should be decided.

I would also repeat what I said earlier, that it is now common in the fields of betting, gaming, liquor, and consumer credit to impose a positive licensing system. In effect, society is saying that to carry on a given activity and to make a profit out of it is a privilege which we only grant to a fit and proper person. In such cases, a recent criminal conviction would always be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration, although by no means always conclusive.

The same principles apply to the Bill, but instead of a positive licensing system, the Bill imposes a negative licensing system—in other words, people are fit until they are found to be unfit—a power to prohibit rather than a power to permit. The basis of the Bill is an appreciation of the fact that the social consequences of malpractice in estate agency work are such that it should be done only by fit and proper persons. I do not think that any noble Lord would disagree with that. Therefore, there is no double jeopardy. The Director's powers are not powers to impose a further penalty for the same offence, but powers which enable him to ensure that only those fit to engage in estate agency work should do so.

The fitness of someone convicted of violence to enter people's homes and of those who have discriminated to do estate agency work must inevitably be in question. However, there is nothing in the Bill that makes a debarral following a conviction or a finding automatic. Where a particular criminal conviction does not indicate unfitness to continue to engage in estate agency work, it would be quite wrong for the Director to make an order. The two things are different sides of the same coin and each illustrates that the Director's order is not a penalty but a decision based on the person's character as a whole. I know that this is a very difficult field, which I accept will have to be exercised with care, but the care is laid down in the Bill. It is a very difficult but a very necessary area.

Lord AIREDALE

I apologise for not having spotted the definition of "discrimination" in Schedule 1. I looked in this clause and in the general interpretation clause, but I did not think of looking in Schedule 1. I may not be the only person to miss this, so at the next stage may we please have a drafting Amendment which will say: … has committed a discrimination within the meaning assigned to it in Schedule 1". Then people will find it.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I do not want to labour this point about the test of fitness, but should there not be written into the Bill somewhere the lines upon which the Director would be asked to consider a test of fitness? At the moment we might have two or three different Directors, or perhaps his assistants, who give totally different views and it would be very confusing. When we are introducing a brand new concept into this profession—I am not saying that the noble Lord has quoted other cases—as a matter of justice, those who may be considered by this test should know in this Bill what the test really implies. I do not know whether the noble Lord could look at that before the next stage.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

That could be done. I accept that it is a very difficult point and if any form of words would give a further explanation and safeguard, certainly it should be considered. At this stage it is very difficult to think of such words. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has already fired a shot across my bows so I have had warning. Certainly, it is a matter that could be considered. However, in saying that I mean that it should be given consideration by both sides.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I was rather taken by surprise there because I spoke to Amendment No. 17 and did not realise that we were also dealing with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Perhaps, for the record I could say a word on Amendment No. 18. In another place the Secretary of State appeared to express some sympathy for the argument that discrimination should be left to the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, he rejected that approach largely on the narrow ground that the Consumer Credit Act contains a similar clause, but the precedent does not seem to be a good one as the Consumer Credit Act and the Estate Agents Bill are not properly analogous measures. This Bill seeks to regulate a long-recognised independent profession. In practice I think it would be very difficult to find this discrimination which, as has been mentioned, may well be insisted upon by the purchaser. There will be no obligation even on a vendor to accept the top price. I think that the totting up process within the Bill, which may lead to loss of livelihood, may become a worry to estate agents.

One of the important questions—and perhaps the noble Lord would answer this—concerns the various assurances that he has given and which were given in another place. Are those assurances binding on successive Administrations? —because it is all very well having an assurance now, but what happens in five years' time when we have perhaps a totally different Secretary of State with a different outlook who may ignore them?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

That is a very difficult question to answer. I can answer for my side of the Committee, but I cannot answer if the other side of the Committee came over to this side. This is something which I should not like to forecast. The noble Earl probably knows his own Party better than I do.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think he has told me that the assurance covers his own side. I think that this side of the Committee will also stand by their assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord GISBOROUGH had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No.18: Page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4.

The noble Lord said: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under sections 3 and 4]:

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

With the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, as noble Lords do not have the marked list, although the two Front Benches do have it, it is hoped that we can deal with Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 together.

Lord SWINFEN moved Amendment No. 20: Page 6, line 19, after ("against") insert ("a body corporate, unincorporated association or").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 because they are consequential upon Amendment No. 20. By my reading of the Bill, this particular clause refers only to partnerships. Today there are a number of estate agencies that are either operating as limited companies or as unlimited companies. I think that the wording which I have suggested, which I have taken from Clause 22(3)(c) should include companies both limited and unlimited. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I am by no means unsympathetic to the purpose of this Amendment. When a company is banned it would be absurd if the true malefactor could set up again straight away on his own or through the medium of another company. All of us who are concerned with consumer affairs know that numerous complaints relate to just this sort of thing. The problem was much in our minds in drawing up the Bill. That was why we provided in Clause 1(1) that the controls applied equally to those employed in a business. Similarly, in Clause 3(3) we have provided for a measure of vicarious liability. The reason for the special provision in relation to partnerships is that the relationship of partners to one another and to the partnership is not that of employee/ employer. It might well happen that something was done or omitted to be done in the name of a firm for which one of the partners was morally responsible, but which could not be ascribed to him. However, although I think that the clause works as intended, frankly, I must admit that I am not entirely happy with it. I have listened to the noble Lord and I give the undertaking that, if he will withdraw his Amendment, I should like to look again to see that all is well and that it is satisfactory.

Lord SANDYS

That is one of the most reassuring answers that the noble Lord has given this evening. It is clear from reading the clause that it is considerably more complicated than it perhaps appears. This marks a stage in our discussions, and I am particularly glad that the Government have thought fit to support the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.

Lord SWINFEN

I thank the noble Minister for his reply. On his undertaking to reconsider the clause, I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.] Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Revocation and variation of orders under sections 3 and 4]:

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

If Amendment No. 23 is carried then 1 cannot call Amendment No.24.

8.41 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 23: Page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: It is wrong in principle that the Director-General of Fair Trading should be given powers to speculate about an appellant's possible future course of action, he should be concerned only with points of fact. Sufficient powers exist under paragraph (a) above for the Director to be able to refuse applications from unfit agents. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I really cannot accept this Amendment. The Amendment proposed would have the effect of leaving the Director free to apply his own criteria in deciding whether or net to grant a variation or revocation of a warning order.

Under Clause 4 the Director will have made up his mind whether a person would be unfit to carry on estate agency work if he were to continue to engage in the specified practice. Therefore, where a person is seeking variation or revocation if no guidance were given to the Director he would again be able to consider only a person's unfitness if he were to repeat the offence (which is something he has already decided) without reference to the question whether he is likely to do so. The effect of Clause 6(4)(b) is that in judging whether to grant the application or not, the Director will consider whether he is likely to engage again in the practice and he will obviously look again for evidence of improvement. If he finds such evidence he will revoke the order. Thus Clause 6(4)(b) is of benefit to the estate agent. It enables a warning order to be lifted if there are signs of improvement. The Amendment would have just the opposite effect.

In the case of refusal or more limited variation than was sought, the applicant would in any case have the right to make representations, have a hearing and make an appeal. Therefore, I emphatically ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Lord AIREDALE

Would it not be an improvement if, instead of merely "he considers"—that is, the Director considers—it were to say: considers upon reasonable grounds, or has reasonable grounds to suppose that the applicant may again engage in the practice…". I see that the next clause provides for appeals to the Secretary of State against the decision of the Director, and if the criterion is merely whether the Director-General considered, the Secretary of State has not got much room for manoeuvre; but if you insert in this paragraph "considers upon reasonable grounds", then there is something to appeal about to the Secretary of State. You can go to him and argue that the Director misdirected himself because he really had no reasonable grounds upon which to come to this consideration. I would urge that consideration be given to strenghtening the paragraph by inserting "on reasonable grounds", or words to that effect.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I would remind him that all statutory discretion must be exercised reasonably under common law.

The Earl of KINNOULL

The noble Lord in his reply ended by saying that this helps estate agents. I assume that this warning order under Clause 4 would be entered on the register under Clause 8, which is a register which is open to public inspection, and indeed is a damaging piece of evidence that the estate agent is possibly about to lose his licence, or could lose his licence. If the estate agent finds himself in this position with a warning order, and he then applies to get it revoked, as the noble Lord says he has an appeal under Clause 7. I do not understand how it can help him that the Director-General of Fair Trading can take a speculative view, which is really the wording of this clause, that at some time in the future he is likely to go back to his bad old ways. I do not understand the wording of this subsection, and I hope that the noble Lord will look at it again and try to improve on the wording. I think that this is what the Committee is asking.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

In point of fact, subject to the noble Lord withdrawing this particular Amendment, I am to move Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 which I think will cover his point.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Would the noble Lord answer the point about the register? Does he know whether a warning order will be subject to being put on the register under Clause 8?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Not offhand, I must admit. As noble Lords know, work on this has been considerably rushed and I cannot give an immediate answer on that point.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Would the noble Lord be able to find out before we get to Clause 8?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I shall do my best.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.48 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26:

Page 7, line 31, after ("may") insert ("again fail to comply with a relevant statutory obligation, or as the case may be")

Page 7, line 42, after ("likely") insert ("to fail to comply with a relevant statutory obligation or")

Page 8,line 9, at end insert— ("(7) In this section "relevant statutory obligation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 4(1)a) above.")

The noble Lord said. With the leave of Committee, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 together. These are Amendments arising from Amendments to Clause 4 at Report stage in the Commons, and related Amendments. These Amendments are consequential on an Amendment accepted in the other place which made it possible for the Director to issue a preliminary warning order under Clause 4 in the event of failure to meet one of those statutory obligations which do not attract a criminal penalty; they are at Clauses 15 and 18 to 21 of the Bill. As a result of these Amendments the Director will be able to consider whether an applicant for variation or revocation of such a warning order has shown sufficient evidence of reform to justify the lifting of the warning order or its variation in a way favourable to the applicant. I beg to move.

The Earl of KINNOULL

There is one small point which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would have made, that under Amendment No. 26 the noble Lord is suggesting an interpretation of the words "relevant statutory obligation". Should that be put into the relevant Schedule so that all looking at this Bill will be able to see that interpretation?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I shall have to look into that. I might mention that warning orders will go on the register while they are in force.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Appeals]:

8.51 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 27: Page 8, line 17, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("court").

The noble Lord said: We now enter the important part of the Bill which relates to the appeals procedure. Anxieties have already been expressed about the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading. The Bill proposes that the Director shall be awarded and charged with the use of very wide powers, and the anxieties that have been expressed must be justified unless the appeals procedure under which someone who presents himself as a charged person to plead his innocence enables him do so in circumstances where he believes he may obtain justice.

The Government proposal is to set up a tribunal. The Director-General will be placed in the position that those who come within his jurisdiction will have to seek to place their case before a tribunal set up by the Secretary of State. Presumably the tribunal will consist of one or more people drawn from a panel, and in this case the suggestion is very similar to what might be done in a planning situation. It is our contention, however, that the situation is totally different, and a number of those who will be presenting appeals will have their livelihood at stake. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull earlier described situations in which nothing less than the livelihood of the appellant would be at stake.

It is interesting to note what Mr. John Fraser, the noble Lord's right honourable friend, said in another place; it is clear that the Government are satisfied that the appeals procedure proposed in the Bill will be staisfactory, but we believe that it falls far short of the desired result. In Standing Committee E, the Minister said at column 78: Thirdly—this is perhaps the most important reason—the courts in general show a reluctance to substitute their judgments for that of a tribunal or, in this case, for that of the Director-General of Fair Trading. There would be a tendency, if the appeal lay direct from the Director-General to the courts, for the courts not to involve themselves too much in the judgments of practice which had been reached by the Director-General, whereas the tribunal would be better qualified to do so than a court of law". I believe that is a serious misappraisal by the noble Lord's right honourable friend and it is our intention in tabling this Amendment to redress the situation. I beg to move.

Lord GISBOROUGH

Clause 3 gives wide powers to the Director General of Fair Trading, and in extreme cases the ability to deprive a person of his livelihood. In these circumstances, the rights of the individual must be fully protected and this can be done effectively only by ensuring that appeal against an order of the Director-General of Fair Trading lies not to the Secretary of State but to the court on matters both of law and of fact. Clause 7(1) should be amended by deleting the worlds "Secretary of State" and substituting the word "court".

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Are we dealing at the same time with Amendments Nos. 31 and 32?

Lord SANDYS

No, I moved only Amendment No. 27.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

As the Committee wishes, though I think it would have been better to deal with those Amendments too. I can fully appreciate the concern which noble Lords have expressed about cases where an individual could be deprived of his livelihood, and their anxiety that arrangements for appeal against the Director's decision should ensure not only that the appellant has a proper opportunity to put his case but also that he can be assured of just treatment. The Government have had these considerations much in mind when drawing up the system of appeal written into the clause and are of the opinion that it has advantages for the appellant as compared with the more formal procedures of the courts.

Amendment No. 27, by allowing an appeal from the Director's decision direct to the courts, would mean that the appellant had only two opportunities to make his case. The system written into the Bill allows him, first, a full administrative hearing by the Director; secondly, a subsequent appeal to the Secretary of State, who can consider the case on administrative grounds before deciding whether to uphold, withdraw or vary the Director's decision; and, thirdly, he can appeal to the courts on a point of law, and this includes the case where it is held that the verdict of the tribunal was against the weight of evidence. The system of the Bill therefore gives the agent three opportunities to state his case. I could give examples of further advantages, but I think those remarks cover the point. There is a chance to go to the court and, in the circumstances, the opportunities for appeal are greater here.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Although the Minister referred to three opportunities, in fairness to the Committee it should be said that they are really only two, and they are on the narrow point of law as to whether one could appeal to the court. It is also fair to say, if one is looking at the position where an estate agent has appealed either against a warning order or against having been struck off under Clause 3, that the case needs to be dealt with very quickly; we do not want a long drawn-out case which is costly and time-consuming during the three phases which the noble Lord mentioned. I suggest that there would be very few estate agents who, having lost their earnings and their business, would have the money behind them to fight in such a situation.

If the Government are not able to accept my noble friend's persuasive arguments, then perhaps it should not be the court to which appeal should be made but a High Court judge; certainly it should be to someone other than the Secretary of State because he will basically be responsible for the Director-General of Fair Trading—he will have appointed him, so far as I know—and the matter is too close. I am not saying that the Secretary of State would act unfairly, but he could be seen to be acting unfairly or the applicant might not feel that his case had been dealt with fairly. If there is a parallel, perhaps one might mention the case of a member of Her Majesty's Services; if he is asked to leave the Service he has roughly the same procedure open to him, in that he can appeal to the Secretary of State for Defence and subsequently, on a point of law, to the court. I do not think it has been over-proved that this kind of situation is very satisfactory. I know that the professional bodies feel very strongly about this matter. Indeed, I believe that all those practicing in estate agency feel very strongly about it. What they want is simply a fair and quick procedure of appeal, and a hearing which is independent of the Government. At the moment, one is not getting this from what is written into the Bill, as my noble friend has said and as has been argued in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to look at this again.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, correctly, it would seem that, if the appellant feels that the weight of evidence is on his side yet the tribunal rules against him, he can go to the courts even at that stage. Therefore, is this not duplicating a procedure, and would it not be better to cut out the appeal altogether and go straight from the Secretary of State to the courts, rather than involve the tribunal?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

That is a very attractive point. I had intended to add to my opening remarks and to say that there are a number of real advantages for the agent in putting his case to a tribunal headed by a legally qualified chairman which will advise the Secretary of State, instead of to the courts. The tribunal can exercise a greater discretion than the courts. It cannot impose a sanction more severe than the Director has proposed. Its administrative approach will mean that its procedures are less formal than the adversarial procedures of the courts, and the appellant will in consequence find it easier to make his case and to put forward all the circumstances surrounding his work which appear to him relevant. The tribunal will be less expensive for him than the court hearing. The experience of someone involved in estate agency work will contribute to the assessments made by the tribunals of cases where a knowledge of what goes on in estate agency work is of relevance to a judgment.

Lastly, the courts show a general reluctance to substitute their judgment for that of a tribunal or of the Director. If the appeal were direct to the courts from the Director's decision, it is unlikely that the courts would involve themselves in the Director's judgments on the question of practice as the tribunal advising my honourable friend would be in a position to do. In brief, there is no reason why the appellant should be at a disadvantage under the appeals system of the Bill. Quite frankly, in many cases it will by virtue of the system operating be cheaper and better for the appeal, unless there are some points which force the agent to go to the courts, which he is fully entitled to do.

Lord AIREDALE

Did the noble Lord say that the chairman of the tribunal would be, or might be, a legally qualified person?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I said that he would be a legally qualified person.

Lord AIREDALE

The Minister said something on those lines, I thought.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I shall repeat my words slowly. There are, as I have indicated, a number of very real advantages for the agent in putting his case to a tribunal headed by a legally qualified chairman which would advise the Secretary of State, instead of to the courts. The chairman of the tribunal will be legally qualified.

Lord SWINFEN

Will the noble Lord indicate the standing of the legally qualified chairman? Is he thinking of a judge or a barrister—or what would be the level?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Personally, I am not thinking of anyone, because I am not qualified to reach a decision on the question of legal standing. I cannot deal with that point at this stage. All I can say is that he, or she—after all, we have sex equality—will be legally qualified. I shall not try to answer tonight on what the legal qualifications would be.

Lord SANDYS

On such an important question we cannot leave the matter there. Clearly, the Council on Tribunals will be instrumental in making certain administrative arrangements. The Government cannot at this stage say the degree of qualification or eminence of the legally qualified person, which we most certainly desire to know as a matter of practice, and which would be helpful to our discussion. For the benefit of the noble Lord I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment at this stage if the Government will investigate and see what practices and procedures they are going to adopt in appointing the tribunal, so that we can have a much better discussion at the Report stage.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I accept that.

Lord SANDYS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

If Amendment No. 28 is carried, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 to 32.

9.6 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 28: Page 8, line 22, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment is to press the Govern- ment to include the regulations for appeals in the Bill. It is quite unacceptable for the regulations to be made by Statutory Instruments in the way specified in the clause. Estate agents have a right to know where they stand, and Parliament must be able to examine the Government's proposals in order to ensure that there are adequate provisions for consultations with the representative bodies on the composition of appeals panels and so on. The Bill should contain more positive requirements as to the hearing of appeals. The Secretary of State has said that regulations under Clause 7(3) would provide for an appeal to be heard by a panel and that the experience of those engaged in estate agency work would be of great importance in assessing the criteria of appeals, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord. If such a system were to be contemplated, there should be a positive requirement on the part of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 7(3), and the Bill itself, and not the regulations, should set out the appeals procedure. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

The Amendment would remove the power to make appeals regulations. There would be no power to lay down the time limit, the process, or the system of appeals. There is an established distinction between substantive and procedural law. The right of appeal is part of substantive law, and it would be wrong to put it anywhere but in the Bill itself. The time and manner for appeal is a matter of procedure which is entirely appropriate for regulations. The intention is to follow closely the regulations made for consumer credit appeals. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Lord GISBOROUGH.

I think this is an important point for some of the bodies involved, and I should like to come back to it at Report stage and also when one has seen what has happened to the previous Amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 29: Page 8, line 22,leave out ("may") and insert ("must within six months of the passing of this Act").

The noble Earl said: This, in a sense, is on the same point. The purpose of my Amendment is to put into the Bill a provision imposing on the Government a duty to bring these regulations into effect within six months of the passing of the Bill. I think that is a very reasonable request, and I think it is in fact an important request by Parliament. I think that all Secretaries of State tend to let things lie because of the pressure of work on their officials, and so on. Indeed, one is sometimes aghast at the number of Acts of Parliament which are passed in relation to which one finds that parts of the Acts have never come into force at all. I therefore think that on this particular point, when one is dealing with appeals, about which estate agents themselves are feeling very sensitive, it is only right that the Government should indicate in the Bill a time within which they will bring in the regulations. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

There is another Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall". Shall we take that now?

Lord SANDYS

I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if both were taken together.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

There are two Amendments which would impose on my right honourable friend a duty to issue regulations about arrangements for appeals. It might be convenient, if it is agreeable—and this has already been indicated—that we take them together. The Amendments appear to be based upon an apprehension that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented without the provision of proper and publicised arrangements for the hearing of appeals by my right honourable friend against a decision of the Director to issue a warning or banning order. Any such fear is without grounds. The appeals arrangements are an integral part of the control system. The Bill itself, in Clause 7(1), provides a right of appeal. It would be unthinkable, and arguably illegal, for the Director's powers to make orders to be brought into force without bringing into force the right of appeal. The absence of regulations about their timing, conduct and so on, would not mean that there was no right of appeal, but the arrangements could not work as intended.

On the question of timing, it will have been noted that Clause 36 provides for the Bill to come into force when my right honourable friend, by statutory instrument, appoints a day, and allows him to appoint different days for different provisions and different purposes. This approach was adopted so as to enable my right honourable friend to make proper administrative arrangements at central and local authority level; to carry out consultations (including, for instance, with the estate agents' organisations about the make-up of the panel from which will be drawn tribunal members to advise my right honourable friend on appeals); to ensure sufficient prior publicity to allow estate agents to prepare for the necessary changes in their working arrangements, and so on. I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention to lay orders introducing the main provisions implementing control by the Director together with the appeals regulations at the earliest possible date. Certain other provisions, such as those relating to clients' money, where some agents will need time to arrange cover, will follow later.

Thus, the appeals regulations, which will be on lines similar to the Consumer Credit Licensing (Appeals) Regulations 1976, will inevitably be introduced at the first stage of the introduction of the control and, for the reasons I have mentioned, it would be unrealistic to put a time limit on the date for introduction. Furthermore, it would, as I have no doubt your Lordships will accept, be constitutionally indefensible to lay a duty on the Minister to make regulations, as a decision in such matters lies with a future Parliament.

Lord AIREDALE

Leaving aside the six months, I shall be astonished if the Government resist Amendment No. 30, when we get to that. What possible sense is there in saying that the Secretary of State "may" make provisions by regulations, instead of "shall", when at the end of the subsection it says: … such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment by Parliament? We have got to have these regulations, and we have got to have this appeals procedure. Like it or not, the Secretary of State has got to face up to making the regulations in order to make the Bill workable; and to say that he "may" make provisions by regulation seems to be really quite ridiculous.

Lord SWINFEN

This is a very unusual year in that there must be a General Election; and this could be used as an excuse for delaying the making of these provisions. I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment and ensure that the Secretary of State does make provisions within six months—no matter what Party. Otherwise the matter could be allowed to drag on for a very long time. As I understand it, under the Bill the Director would have a duty to make orders under certain circumstances. If there are no provisions for appeal, there will be a very pretty mess and a number of individuals could lose their livelihood and be put into an exceedingly awkward situation.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Do not ask me to start getting involved in speculations about a General Election. That is not within my duties tonight, anyway. I can appreciate the points made by noble Lords. Amendment No. 29 is constitutionally indefensible because it would require the making of regulations within six months. I sincerely hope that that would not happen because it could be that my right honourable friend would be unable to comply with the duty laid upon him because, even though the regulations were laid, there was no Parliamentary majority for any proposals. How could he comply with his duty in that case?

Generally the Amendments achieve nothing. It is not the regulations which give the right of appeal; it is Clause 7(1). If my right honourable friend were so minded—which I hasten to assure your Lordships he is not—he could make regulations without bringing into force the substantive provisions about the Director's orders and appeals from them. I can assure your Lordships that there will be no undue delay; but if there was any danger of that this Amendment would not prevent it. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, whether he is very concerned about this Amendment and whether he wishes to press it.

Lord SANDYS

On the constitutional point, I was very surprised that the Government have said that it would be constitutionally impossible or constitutionally inconvenient for this Amendment to be written into the Bill; because I can recall—and I am sure that many of my noble friends can recall—occasions when the noble Lord's noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has criticised many Acts of Parliament which have not included implementation clauses with a time limit. This is a fact in drafting which has had very serious affects on certain Acts of Parliament. If we do choose to withdraw this Amendment, we would do so only with the greatest reluctance and at this late hour. I see that it is now long past the moment when the noble Lord was going to tell us his time-table for the rest of the evening. Subject to any further suggestions which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull might make, I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I were to withdraw this Amendment.

Lord AIREDALE

Before the noble Lord does so, coming back to what we were discussing just now—the question of a legally-qualified chairman of the tribunal—if the situation is that the Secretary of State "may" make provisions as to the persons by whom appeals are to be heard—and it is only an enabling provision—and he does not make the provisions, then it is not much good talking about there having to be a legally-qualified chairman; because unless the Secretary of State has to make provisions, how do we know that we are going to get a legally-qualified chairman?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I have already indicated that the chairman of the tribunal will be legally-qualified. I do not think I need go further than that.

Lord AIREDALE

He will not be so until the Secretary of State makes the provisions; and if the Secretary of State does not have to make the provisions, it will not occur.

Lord Wallace of COSLANY

There will be no tribunal until the Secretary of State lays down the order.

Lord AIREDALE

That is why we want "shall".

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I think there is a little misunderstanding here. I am dealing with the question of whether we are withdrawing the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am tempted not to take any action until my noble friend's specific question, about how long we are going to discuss this Bill, is answered. I see that the Chief Whip is not here. Perhaps she has gone off to a dinner. I wonder whether the noble Lord has a reply to that question.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

The Chief Whip is away on Government business in another country warmer than this country at the present time. The Deputy Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is about. We are quite content to continue for quite a while yet. That is the position.

9.20 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

I really must express dissatisfaction with that reply. Not only have the Government put us in a difficulty—and we have been over this earlier—with the grouping of amendments, but, further, they have set no particular programme on how far progress shall go. It was a very real point of comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that consumer legislation should come on so very late at night. We are concerned here with a very important clause at the heart of a Bill. I ask the Government to consider very seriously what the programme should be. From our point of view, of course we will continue until a sensible and desirable moment; but it appears to us that the Government have no particular programme.

Lord JANNER

May I intervene? I do not understand what is happening. So far as I understand procedure in this Committee and in the other place, there is an arrangement between the people who are really important and know everything on both sides of the House as to what procedure shall be adopted. Why blame the Government? Blame your own people. Go and see them, have a talk to them and find out why they have misled you, if they have done so. You cannot put blame on what we are trying to do. I am not very keen about the situation myself; I should prefer to be home. But that is not the point. The point is that this is an arrangement and you cannot blame one side or the other. You should blame yourself as well.

Lord SANDYS

What would satisfy us at this stage, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said—with which I do not agree—is that we should like to know what the programme is for the evening.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I cannot give the answer immediately. I do not take these decisions; this is a matter for other people. I have passed a message to my noble friend to get a decision later. In the meantime, I must repeat the point that noble Lords at very short notice have put down 82 Amendments. I am sure that they want them properly debated. While I can understand that, in point of fact we have not had much opportunity to get the job satisfactorily settled. The "usual channels" have decided to take this Bill at the end of the day. I cannot help that. My responsibility is to get the Committee stage of the Bill through. If noble Lords have put down 82 Amendments, they must accept the responsibility for debating them, even if they lose their sleep.

Lord SANDYS

Of course everybody accepts responsbility for the Amendments; but the point is that we want to debate those important Amendments in an orderly and satisfactory manner. We would, I am sure, accept what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is acting Chief Whip for the Government, has to say. If he has been able to reach a decision it would please us very much.

Lord GISBOROUGH

Is the noble Lord aware that one of the reasons why this is happening is because this, along with many other Bills, is being rushed through? In fact most of these Amendments were put down as soon as they could be received and as soon as the postal service would allow. I am responsible for many Amendents. The time taken of a week for preparation with the responsible bodies and then about a week for the post to get the Amendments in, has meant that it has not been possible to do it earlier.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

This is not quite correct, is it? Many of these Amendments were tabled, discussed and disposed of in another place. It is not fair now to suggest or try to give the impression that these are new Amendments. These are not new Amendments that have been brought forward for the purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, of improving the Bill. To suggest that the other place did not deal with the Bill correctly I think is entirely wrong. Most of these Amendments have already been dealt with by the elected representatives of the people:

Lord AIREDALE

But that is very odd, because the Minister was complaining that he had had so little time in which to consider these Amendments.

Lord STRABOLGI

Perhaps I might say a word here. I should like to say initially that no one has approached me to suggest that we should adjourn at nine o'clock or at some slightly later hour. Nobody came to make any representations about that and I gave no undertakings. So far as I am concerned, I think the arrangement was that we should finish the Committee stage tonight. It does not seem to me, by the standards of another place, that it is very late; it is only half-past nine. As my noble friend Lord Wallace has said, a great many Amendments were put down last night. I think we ought to consider them and make some progress. I suggest that we carry on and see how we go, and perhaps review the situation a little later on. I hope that would be the wish of the Committee.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I should not have thought that was the wish of the Committee at all. I should have thought that the majority, if it came to a decision, would consider that we should adjourn. I wonder whether it would be in order to propose that: I do not know. I do not think that people work at their best if they are short of sustenance.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I think that one of the troubles—and I am sure it was quite inadvertent—was that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated that at about nine o'clock we would adjourn. However, what he said will be on the record.

Lord STRABOLGI

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the noble Earl. As acting Chief Whip, I can say that no representations have been made to me that we should adjourn at nine o'clock. I gave no undertaking. In fact the matter has not arisen at ail before now. I must make that clear.

Baroness YOUNG

I hesitate to intervene as I have not been in the Chamber during the Committee proceedings, but I think there seems to have been some quite genuine misunderstanding about the arrangements that had been arrived at. Clearly we are going on until a very late hour if we finish the Committee stage. I think there is nothing against the Rules of the House in people putting down Amendments at the last minute, although I appreciate this makes matters more difficult for Government spokesmen. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said that he will look at this point again in the interests of everybody working in the House, apart from anything else. Perhaps he would consider what would be a reasonable hour at which we might adjourn. The other point I should like to raise is this: I do not know whether we have a quorum at the moment. If not, we are in a very difficult position in Committee, should we wish to press any of the Amendments.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Coming back to Amendment No. 29, there is one point I should like to ask the noble Lord; it is a very serious point. We have heard that it is constitutionally indefensible. We have had, as I understand it, an undertaking from him that the Secretary of State would not introduce by regulations Clauses 3, 4, 6 or 8 until he had produced regulations to cover the whole package. I would accept that as a very sensible arrangement and I hope the noble Lord will confirm that that is what he said. However, what I think we would like to know tonight is just how far the discussions with the Secretary of State and all his advisers have got as regards the appeal procedures. In essence they are, of course, spelt out in Clause 7, but not in detail. I think it would be reassuring, since there are many regulations in this Bill—some may say too many—if the noble Lord could advise the Committee how far the discussions have got. I think that that is a fair point, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I cannot really do that at the moment, for reasons which I think the noble Earl will accept. But I can say something to sweeten everybody. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, 1 am prepared to consider accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.

The Earl of KINNOULL

That is a very sweet pill indeed, and I am delighted that my noble friend's Amendment should be the first successful Amendment to be accepted by the Government. It is a very substantial one, and on those grounds I am happy to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that we may have to look at it again at the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.31 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No.30: Page 8, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is prepared to accept this Amendment. I think that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on this Amendment was most persuasive, and there is no doubt that this will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 31: Page 8, line 27, after ("Secretary of State") insert ("such persons to be chosen in consultation with professional bodies concerned with the practice of estate agency").

The noble Lord said: We now come to that part of the appeal procedure which relates to the task with which the Secretary of State has been charged; that is, appointing and consulting with professional bodies. At this stage, it may not be particularly beneficial if I speak at great length, because we earlier had the assurance from the Government that they are to discover what procedures they will use, and how they will set up this tribunal. I prefer to regard this as a probing Amendment, and to ask the Government whether they intend to follow the sense of the Amendment by consulting with the professional bodies concerned. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

In answer to the noble Lord, it is clear that my right honourable friend will need accountants and lawyers, as well as estate agents among his advisers. Experience may show that it is necessary to draw upon knowledge in other fields. It is a requirement to consult with one or even a number of professions, and this is written into the Bill. It may be interpreted as excluding consultation with others. I am sure your Lordships will accept that to ensure the proper handling of individual appeals, my right honourable friend must be able to draw on individuals who have the knowledge and experience relevant to a particular case. In any case, it would arguably be a breach of natural justice to give the professional bodies any formal or other role in deciding by whom a case should be heard. Once the list of those on the panel is drawn up, on which, as I have said, there will be consultation, it is essential that in each case the tribunal should be, and should be seen to be, absolutely impartial. There will be consultations before the formation of the tribunal.

Lord SANDYS

With those assurances, I shall with great pleasure beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Register of orders, etc.]:

9.34 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 33: Page 9, line 28, leave out ("it comes to the attention of the Director that").

The noble Lord said: We now come on to the register. Under Clause 8, the Director is charged with the task of establishing and maintaining a register. Under this Amendment, we think it would be a good plan to adopt a fail-safe procedure. As it stands at the moment, subsection (4) reads as follows: If it comes to the attention of the Director that any order of which particulars appear in the register is no longer in operation, he shall remove those particulars from the register". We believe that a better procedure would be to remove the words set out in the Amendment and to say that any order of which particulars appear in the register is no longer in operation if the Director shall remove those particulars. It is a simple but nevertheless, we believe, an improved procedure to adopt. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I shall make reference also to Amendment No.34. At first glance, it appears only fair to the estate agent that the Director should be required to correct the register when a banning or warning order ceases to operate. Unfortunately, such a requirement would not be practicable, as the Director will not in all cases know the date when the order ceases to be effective.

In the majority of cases, the Director will, of course, have sufficient information to amend the register immediately. Where he revokes an order himself, there is no problem. Similarly, where, for instance, a finding of discrimination which gave rise to the order ceases to have effect by virtue of Clause 3(5), he will know the relevant date and be able to amend the register accordingly. More generally, it is one of the purposes of the duty placed under Clause 9(5) and (6) upon the courts and upon the relevant discrimination commissions to inform the Director of convictions, judgments, findings and so on relevant to his functions under the Bill to ensure that the Director is fully aware of what is happening. However, circumstances will inevitably arise in which the Director cannot possibly know, for example, when a conviction becomes spent. Cases which spring to mind are those where an agent has committed another crime and the time limit under the rehabilitation of offenders legislation is in consequence automatically extended, or where the agent dies before the time limit is spent.

These Amendments would impose a duty on the Director which could not be fulfilled. It would be rare that he would not know of something, but it is by no means impossible and it is only right to make suitable provision. May I add that it was even the case not so long ago that another place was not certain whether or not one of its Members was still a Member? Just consider the effect of such Amendments as these on that case.

From the estate agent's viewpoint, the fact that an order remains on the register does not mean that the agent is subject to it if, in fact, it has ceased to have effect. The register is not conclusive evidence that the agent is banned or the subject of a warning. Clause 8(6) makes express provision for overturning the presumption raised by an entry on the Register. The agent can, as necessary, seek to prove that the register is incorrect and will no doubt not be slow in drawing the Director's attention to the fact where an order against him has ceased to be operative.

In brief, the Director could not, in the nature of things, fulfil a duty to correct the register when an order ceases to operate. However, I can safely say that he will be able to do so in most cases, and, where he knows of something, he is under a duty to act. Where he cannot know of something, I would maintain that it is no great burden to expect the agent to draw the Director's attention to the fact that an order against him is no longer effective. That is the position. It is because of that that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Lord SANDYS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that information because this Amendment has been discussed for the first time. I think a comment was made earlier that there were no new Amendments. There are a large number of new Amendments and this is one of them, and it is most definitely the function of your Lordships' House to examine this Bill in greater depth. We shall look with care at what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has told us about this Amendment but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

9.41 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No.35: Page 10, line 4, leave out ("unless the contrary is proved").

The noble Lord said: Clause 8(6) seems to be ambiguous as it stands. It is not clear whether the words, and shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be correct", refer only to the situation in Scotland or whether they have a more general relevance. It may be that this concerns an obscure point of Scots law but, if not, it seems to be a denial of natural justice to place the onus of proof on the estate agent to show that the particulars contained in an order made against him by the Director General of Fair Trading are incorrect. It should be for the Director General to prove his case. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

This Amendment raises similar issues to those raised by Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which we have just considered and which have been withdrawn. I do not think I can say very much more. I have explained how it may happen that an entry may not be removed from the register when the order has lapsed. It would be quite wrong for the redundant entry to be presumed to be correct. The agent must have a right to show that the order has lapsed. We have virtually discussed this, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I think what my noble friend was asking for was an explanation of the use of those words and I am not sure that the noble Lord has really replied to it. What he has said is that he has dealt with it in previous Amendments, and that is that. Can he in fact address himself to these precise words and explain to the Committee what they really mean? I took it that when he referred to Scottish law what he was saying was that you must prove yourself to be not guilty rather than the other way round. I may be entirely wrong and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain the use of these words.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

We have really discussed this and perhaps the noble Earl will care to check in Hansard tomorrow. The words apply to evidence in England as they would in Scotland; it is all conclusive. There is very little that I can add to what I have already said. This has to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has withdrawn his Amendments but the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord is very relevant and I ask him to withdraw it at this stage.

Lord DRUMALBYN

Perhaps I can help my noble friend. This is a very common formula which crops up in all the Acts: when evidence is referred to in England, it is referred to as "sufficient evidence" in Scotland.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

The Earl of KINNOULL

Clause 8, as we know, deals with the register. As I read it, the register will be entered and in fact the names will not be withdrawn. They will be available; if any member of the public wishes to pay a fee to the Director he will be able to do so and these names will be on the record. What I should like to know is this: if an estate agent should go to appeal and should win the appeal, will the record then be withdrawn and will there thereafter be no reference to this charge? Will the action taken by the Director not be on the record? It is only a matter of clarification, which I hope the noble Lord can answer.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I think this is a matter we had better go into a little further. The noble Earl is trying to ensure that the name of an estate agent is not besmirched by a wrongful entry or an entry that has remained. I cannot give any reassurance on this. We have already dealt with it in some detail. I hope I will now be able to give the noble Earl an assurance. After an appeal, the register will be brought up to date.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Powers of entry and inspection]:

9.46 p.m.

The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No.36: Page 12, line 18, leave out ("if required, of his credentials") and insert ("of a warrant either from a Justice of the Peace or from a Sheriff").

The noble Earl said: This is one of the most important Amendments that we have put forward from the estate agent's viewpoint, and one that concerns the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to a great extent. It is, I am afraid, another of the Amendments which were discussed in another place, but the noble Lord has had due warning of it. I hope he will be a little more sympathetic to this one than to most of the others. I read with great care the comments made in another place and although I believe those points to be valid I will not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them tonight. I would, however, like to stress my main concern about the clause as it stands.

If a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority enters an agent's premises to ascertain whether an offence has been committed the reputation of the agent could be damaged for ever by the innuendo of suspicion even though he has done nothing wrong. Word will get around and rumours will be rife that the office of XYZ and partners were visited last week by the authority and as a result their business will suffer. Indeed in a close knit community it will be practically impossible for that firm to continue trading. The purpose of this legislation is to control the rogue agents, and this has support throughout my profession. But control must also be exercised on the authorised officer. Reasonable cause in the mind of that officer in suspecting that an offence has been committed is not an adequate protection for the honest agent. If he has reason to believe that an agent is conducting his business improperly, it is imperative that he should apply for a warrant. I understand that, if there is sufficient evidence for one, it can be obtained quickly and there is no significant delay.

There will always be a section of the community who feel that an agent is not conducting himself properly, and this will be due in the main to lack of understanding of an agent's position and the work that he carries out. Sadly, although this Bill helps in many respects to alter this position it only serves to confuse the individual on other points. This is a matter your Lordships have already discussed. It is, therefore, very important to give the honest agent the adequate protection he needs in this matter.

I would ask the Minister what remedy an agent has, when his premises have been entered and he is proved innocent, but as a result of the duly authorised officer entering the premises his trade suffers and he possibly loses his livelihood as a result. A check must be made on the powers of the officer and this is the best way of doing it; in that he has to obtain a warrant from either a justice of the peace or a sheriff, this would mean that a third party would have to be satisfied that the authorised officer has reasonable cause for requiring the same. I beg to move.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

I think I ought to declare my interest again in this; I am president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the professional body of the officers to whom the noble Earl has referred. I am very glad to be supported this evening by one of the vice-presidents of the Institute, who is sitting on the Benches opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is living in a realm of fantasy if he thinks that the enforcement officers, as he calls them, going on routine visits not only to the premises of estate agents but to all kinds of premises, will get the businessmen whom they visit into any trouble whatever.

I had intended to make a rather prepared and much longer defence of the members of my Institute and the way in which they behave than I shall inflict on the Committee at this time of night. In fact, I was going to give a great many figures to prove my point. Let me take up one aspect of the noble Earl's approach to this. He is under the impression—a completely mistaken impression—that any publicity would be given to the visit of an officer to the office of an estate agent. I have been looking at the annual report of the chief trading standards officer of the county of South Yorkshire. Last year in the period covered by the report his department made over 20,000 visits to business premises. Not only did he do no harm to anybody who was innocent of any offence but in the course of making those visits the officers did something which is implicit in this legislation—legislation which has a very long history and which is part of our traditions. The inspectors go round giving advice and help. The last thing they want to do is to unearth anything that leads to a prosecution. In fact, I was going to develop another argument, which I believe is very sound indeed; that the tradition of giving free access to business premises to these officers—a tradition that goes back 100 years—gains the admiration of people engaged in similar legislation and administration in Europe. I call it a British way of doing things. I was chairman of a Council of Europe Committee that was investigating similar methods of administration in other European countries as well as in Britain. I can assure noble Lords that my Continental colleagues on that Committee expressed a great deal of admiration for the way in which we, in this country, in the same service, have combined giving advice with enforcement.

Because of the tradition that has been built up—because the effect of this clause appears in the whole of our consumer protection legislation (this is not an innovation)—the effect of the clause is to put much greater emphasis on prevention of offences rather than to use, as some of the Continental countries do, prosecutions as a deterrent. I am sure that the noble Lord who disagrees with me about this would agree that the prevention of offences is a very important part of the work of the Trading Standards Officer, the Consumer Protection Officer, the Enforcement Officer or whatever we care to call him.

One argument which the noble Lord put forward on Second Reading was that, although this clause appears in other legislation, that legislation is concerned with the sale of goods; that this is an innovation. It is not concerned with the sale of goods. This is quite wrong. It is not an innovation because the Trade Descriptions Act deals with services. In fact, when we were preparing the Bill for that Act there was a great discussion within the Department as to whether we should cover the sale of properties in the Trade Descriptions Act. The Consumer Credit Act also covers services.

I do not want to prolong this discussion. I merely want to make one further point. I said that in South Yorkshire, for example, there were about 20,000 visits to business premises. Nine thousand of those were in response to complaints made by customers. In point of fact they had received nearly 40,000 complaints, but they whittled these down to something like 9,000 serious complaints. Those noble Lords who have put forward these Amendments have a question to consider; whether they would prefer an estate agent who has had a complaint made against him—which, if these Amendments are carried, the officer has now to treat as prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed—visited by an officer flourishing a warrant (I do not know whether you can keep warrants secret) and looking like a chap from the Fraud Squad; or whether they would have an inspector, an officer with whom possibly he has already developed friendly relations, as happens with the people who are trying to prevent crime rather than seek out prosecutions, going in quietly, without any fuss, without any publicity, and finding out whether there is any substance in the complaint. Not using it as prima facie evidence of an offence being committed, but trying to find out not only whether there is any substance in it but whether, if there is substance in it, the matter can be dealt with without a prosecution.

I said that there were 9,000 serious complaints in South Yorkshire. Because of the way that it is dealt with, which I have tried briefly to describe, out of those complaints there were in fact 101 prosecutions, and most of those dealt with the sale of motor cars. If these Amendments are not carried your Lordships will give to the estate agent's operations the same kind of service that is given to other traders; giving greater importance to the prevention of offences rather than going and seeking prosecutions, going on fishing expeditions. We do not want any of that. It is quite wrong.

Finally, I would call in aid the quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, gave a little while ago from the Ombudsmen. In effect, he said that when you have some good established administration do not change it. I do not think that we should alter our established administration in this regard. The changes proposed in these Amendments would be very much for the worse.

Lord JANNER

I hope not to detain the Committee for long. What I cannot understand, with the greatest respect, is how unrealistic people are when they put forward proposals of this sort. My noble friend adduced a number of the arguments I would have used, and he gave instances of cases. Imagine if in each one of those cases one had to go to a magistrate or court, produce evidence or make a statement as to why he has found it reasonable for there to be suspicion of some kind. The overburdened magistrates of this country have enough on their hands without having to wait for every complainant to come along to try to prove his case.

That is not good enough and it is not real. What is real in these matters is the fact that we have responsible officers; they have been checked and they can get into very serious trouble if they act improperly. It is all very well to ask what will happen if the fellow is proved innocent; but imagine the situation if a person were proved innocent, without the prosecutor or whoever the person might be, being able to show reasonable cause. I wish certain noble Lords who are here today had been with me in the other place over the years; they would have had an opportunity to ascertain what the average person does and how he does it.

I can understand the object here, and 1 suppose I should declare my interest in that I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Authorities. They feel, I believe rightly, that people in this position should not be put to the difficulty, trouble and delay that would arise, because one must remember that it is not always possible to obtain a magistrate. It seems that some people live in realms where they do not know what is happening in these matters. Is it practicable to get hold of a magistrate and make a full application for a warrant and the rest of it and go to court? Delays would be bound to happen and red tape is ridiculous in a case of this description.

My noble friend explained how many cases were ultimately proved. Imagine what would happen if, to that number, we added a considerable influx; and that number would probably follow statistically the same numbers given by my noble friend. What a silly thing it would be to try to enforce such a proposal. I urge noble Lords to have a chat with their magisterial friends before tabling Amendments of this kind again. I hope this one will be withdrawn.

Lord SANDYS

Although I have listened to both noble Lords, Lord Darling and Lord Janner, I remain totally unconvinced by their arguments. My noble friend has a very real point and I attempted, perhaps not convincingly so far as Lord Janner is concerned, to set out on Second Reading the number of Statutes in existence; I mentioned seven Statutes containing powers parallel, if not precisely parallel, to those in Clause 11. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, quoted the Finance Act 1976 which contains two instances of wide powers of inspection. If there are more Acts which give powers of entry and inspection and which are similar to those in Clause 11, that is part of one very large wedge.

Lord Darling said we were living in a world of fantasy. I believe that that world exists, and it was well portrayed in an article by Mr. Patrick Hutber which was quoted in Standing Committee E in another place. Some of us have seen that article, which related to a visit by VAT inspectors to a Chinese restaurant. I will not enter into the details of the case. There are other cases of similar parallel of inspectors visiting premises to the great embarrassment of the management, and subsequently their visits have proved groundless. I believe that there is a very real point of substance here. If a group of Acts of Parliament permit power of entry, we hope that the powers will be used with discretion, but that has not always proved to be the case, and—

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

I must interrupt the noble Lord, if I may. He refers to VAT inspectors. We are not concerned with VAT inspectors. Trading standards officers are employed by local authorities, and I should be very glad if he could produce any cases at all of these officers abusing their authority.

Lord SANDYS

The noble Lord makes a point which is most germane to what we are discussing. I am really discussing the broad powers of entry granted in a group of Acts of Parliament which do not necessarily refer specifically to trading standards officers. We believe that the Government should prove their case here, because under Clause 11(1)(d) powers are granted to an officer to seize books and documents, and to require any person having authority to do so to break open any container and, if that person does not comply, to break it open himself". These are very wide powers. They are reflected in other Acts of Parliament, but we believe that there is a point here which bears much further investigation.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

At the moment we are dealing only with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Another Amendment is to come forward from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I have a very shrewd suspicion that that will take some time. Therefore, let us deal first with the Amendment of the noble Earl. Quite frankly, I am somewhat amazed by the heavy weather being made of this issue, because all this was discussed when we were considering the Consumer Safety Bill, though then there was a difference because the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, rejected the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I was assisting because the Government had a benevolent interest. At that time the opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, came from the Benches opposite. I just do not understand what they are getting at.

However, with regard to the present drafting of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I would ask, how can the trading standards officer obtain a warrant? How can the justices be satisfied? How, unless he goes in and looks, can the enforcement officer know whether, for instance, an agent banned from estate broking and dealing in residential property is ignoring the ban? My noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough made a considerable contribution on this point, but because of the hour I do not intend to develop that theme. We cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I believe that the case has been made out very fully by my noble friend Lord Darling.

Lord AIREDALE

The Minister draws a parallel with the battle we had last summer when we were discussing the Consumer Safety Bill. Consider the circumstances. In that case, enforcement officers were in search of unsafe goods, and it made some sense to say, let the officer go into a warehouse and look around in case he finds unsafe goods, although he had no suspicion when he entered. But I remind the Minister that here the difference is that estate agents do not keep their goods on the premises. What estate agents keep on the premises is their documents; and if the Minister will look at Clause 11(1)(b), he will find that before the enforcement officer is entitled to examine documents he has to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence is being or has been committed. But in paragraph (a), which I am going to discuss when my Amendment is called, no such suspicion has to be aroused for the officer to enter the premises. So the situation is that a model clause, taken from other legislation enacted for other purposes, is jerked into this Bill, to which it has very little relevance indeed. There is no parallel between these two cases, and any suggestion of a parallel is quite illusory.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I made a terrible mistake when I referred to the Consumer Safety Bill and brought in the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because 1 was going to confine my remarks to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, there it is. The position is that we can break off at this stage if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, because we are going to have a very detailed debate on the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—but not tonight if we can avoid it.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

In view of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw my Amendment. I remain totally unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the Government, and I shall come back to the matter on Report. I do not believe the Government have satisfied any of the fears felt by this side of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord STRABOLGI

I gave an undertaking that we would review the position at this time. We seem to have made some further progress, and I am sure it is the wish of the Committee, which has been sitting for nearly four hours, that we should now halt the Committee stage and adjourn it to another day. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.