Lords Sitting of 19 March 1979

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

PETROL: GRADES
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the use of two grades only of petroleum spirit for petrol driven road vehicles.
Lord STRABOLGI: None, my Lords. Demand for the various grades of petrol is largely dependent on the number of types of cars.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, does not the Minister think that some investigation would be worth while from the point of view of both energy conservation and more orderly marketing of what is now becoming a very expensive substance?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we think—and I am sure this should appeal to the noble Lord and his noble friends opposite—that this should be left to market forces.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the market forces to which he refers are held entirely in the hands of the oil supplying companies who have a monopoly position? Does he not also agree that this is not in the best interests of the country in either of the two areas I have mentioned?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there has been a steady trend over the last five years to four-star and two-star. For example, in 1978 80 per cent. was four-
860
star and 12 per cent. was two star, as against only 1 per cent. for five-star.

TELEPHONE TAPPING: AUTHORISATION
2.37 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the tapping of telephones by the police can still be carried out in England and Scotland only where a warrant authorising a particular case has been signed by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it remains the case today, as it was when the Birkett Committee reported in 1957, that the interception of communications is carried out only on the authority of the Secretary of State, given effect in each case by a warrant signed personally by the Secretary of State. That is normally the Home Secretary or, in Scotland (as the noble Lord will recall), the Secretary of State for Scotland; but if for any reason they are not available, a warrant may exceptionally be signed by another Secretary of State.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which will reassure members of the public that there has been no relaxation of the system requiring ministerial authority. But can the noble Lord confirm that the Post Office, as distinct from the police, are also subject to such arrangements and cannot make recordings of private conversations without similar authorisation?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as indeed I am sure the whole House will be, for his preambular remarks. In reply to his supplementary question, I can say, quite firmly, yes. The Post Office will record telephone conversations only on the authority of the Secretary of State. Anyone in the Post Office who recorded a

861
telephone conversation otherwise than under that authority would be committing a criminal offence. I am not, of course, speaking of cases where a subscriber himself has formally requested that the Post Office should record conversations on his own telephone because, for example, he may be receiving a series of threatening or obscene calls. That has nothing to do with the arrangements about which the noble Lord is asking.

RACE RELATIONS ACTS: CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS
2.40 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their proposals to require firms fulfilling Government contracts to carry out their obligations under the Race Relations Acts.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, there has been a condition in Government contracts since 1969 requiring contractors not to discriminate unlawfully within the meaning of the employment provisions of the Race Relations Acts. In the White Paper Racial Discrimination (Cmnd. 6234), the Government announced their intention to take a more active role in eliminating racial discrimination by revising the condition to the effect that contractors should provide on request to the Department of Employment such information about their employment policies and practices as the Department might reasonably require. The Government are currently consulting with the CBI, TUC and the Commission for Racial Equality about their proposals for giving effect to this undertaking. These proposals cover the form of a revised contract condition, the selection of the contractors to be approached and the type of information to be requested.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he has evidence that companies have been breaking the conditions
862
laid down in the Act; and is that not rather disturbing because the main effect of the Race Relations Act in this sphere was with the larger companies?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, I have no evidence. I think that British employers act sensibly within what is the desired policy of whatever Government are in power, and on this there is no party issue.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this is a two-way traffic, and therefore whether the proprietor of an Indian restaurant would be required to employ a certain number of white people on his staff?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that I should answer hypothetical questions.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not this Question a little surprising? Surely we are all supposed to obey the law, are we not? Why should there be any doubt?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is why I said what I did. I have said that the Act is working reasonably well, and let us leave it at that.

NUPE PICKETING AND BLOOD COLLECTION
2.42 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the report that pickets from the National Union of Public Employees are restricting the amount of blood collected from donors in South-East England; to confirm whether this report is true; and if so what effect it is having on blood stocks, and what action the Government are taking in the matter.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, there is no picketing at the South

863
London Blood Transfusion Centre, which is responsible for collections from South-East England. Industrial action at the Centre was limited to two Mondays, and this reduced the number of collections. The present position is that NUPE are restricting the number of donors in any one session. Blood stocks, therefore, have been slightly reduced, but I know of no hospital which has complained that the reduction has gone below the safe level of supply. The unions have agreed to maintain a level of collection of blood which will continue to meet emergency Health Service requirements.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the life-giving value of the blood donor service, combined with the unconditional public spirit of the donors, makes a sharp contrast with the inhuman attack by a small group of workers on this service? Is he aware that his reply, indicating that the effect is relatively small, gives some reassurance, but can he say how it is that NUPE should be in a position to restrict this supply at all? After all, the operation of the service is carried out primarily by doctors and nurses. How is it that NUPE members are able to restrict?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am able to confirm that there is a relatively small effect upon the supply of blood. But blood is collected by a number of teams that go out. Sometimes one team is on the hospital precincts; that is to say, there is a van, there is a doctor, there is a nurse and there are other members of the team. Donors can go along and something like 150 or more a day will use one of these collection vans. Where sessions are held on hospital premises, NUPE can interrupt service and, as I said, they did so for two days. Where the vans are not on hospital premises, that does not apply.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, are the Government prepared to accept a situation whereby NUPE are the arbiters of how much blood is, or is not, to be collected? It they are not prepared to accept that situation, what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are not at all happy. I have never
864
pretended that I, or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, have been in any way agreeable to what has taken place in our hospitals over the past few weeks. We have tried, with some measure of success, I think, by not exacerbating certain situations, to change the position, and I believe that we shall do so. The action by COHSE has now been stopped, and the action by NUPE happened for only two days.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this is simply not a proper subject for industrial action, and the sooner that is made clear to the unions the better?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I entirely agree, and so does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and we have made that view quite clear to them.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does restricting the supply of blood mean that would-be donors have their offers rejected? Have the Government studied the possible effect that that might have on future offers, and will the noble Lord convey to NUPE that whatever case they may or may not have is made infinitely worse in the public mind by resort to disgraceful tactics of this kind?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it certainly means that a small number of people who volunteered to give blood have been prevented from doing so. I think that they understand the position in which the hospital finds itself, and the difficulties in which we in the Department find ourselves. We shall certainly take whatever steps we can to remedy this situation at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more question about the mechanics of it? The actual taking of the blood is done by doctors and nurses. If there is a NUPE member driving the van, is it not possible for the National Health Service to hire a van and let a hired van driver take the service out, take the nurses out, take the doctors out, take the beds out and so on, so that the service can be unimpeded? Will the noble Lord explain why it is that he does not take this emergency action to keep his service going?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, first, I should like noble Lords to bear in mind that there is not a shortage of blood for this purpose. It is nowhere near the level that could be described as unsafe. There are a number of blood banks that do not have the usual amount of blood, but it is still enough and more for their needs. Therefore, I think that my right honourable friend, and certainly the hospital managers, would not want to take some action which might be counterproductive and exacerbate the situation.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, is the Minister aware—and may I beg him to ponder this question—that owing to present behaviour Great Britain, as a so-called civilised nation, is earning the contempt of Europe?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not presume to say that I know what Europe is thinking on this matter.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that there has been no case in any operating theatre where a surgeon has been short of a supply of blood because of any action by NUPE? Will he therefore reject a statement which was made in the Press recently, of one chief police officer who was on the operating table, and they had to call in local police to volunteer to give blood?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not in a position to reject it. I merely say to your Lordships that I am not aware of any such situation at any hospital. It may well be my job to find out. I hope the noble Baroness does not think that I come here without making the fullest possible inquiries.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, then does the Minister confirm that he is not able to assure the House that there has been no case of shortage? That is the question I am asking.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is precisely what I said. I am not aware of any such case.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is it not clear from the events of the past week or two that if the nurses now get a larger pay rise than the members of NUPE the public will cheer very loudly indeed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the House would prefer me to confine myself to the Question which is before your Lordships.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if some of the allegations which have been made are not refuted as a result of inquiries which might be necessary, may I ask my noble friend whether or not he will take advantage of the suggestion which has been made and ascertain those facts and make them known to your Lordships' House, so that we shall all be satisfied, whatever we may think about the right to strike? Nobody wishes to interfere with that principle, which is quite legal, but there are many things that we regard as objectionable. If that is the general position, will my noble friend institute the inquiries which have been suggested?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I and my colleagues never come to the Dispatch Box without considering the Question well beforehand from every possible angle, and we try to bring to your Lordships the answers to every possible supplementary that your Lordships may decide to put. If, following the main Question, a question arises and I cannot answer it, I endeavour to find out what is the answer and to let the noble Lord know.

CONFIRMATION TO SMALL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Confirmation to Small Estates (Scotland) Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is very simple. It proposes to increase the limitation, because of inflationary effects on the currency, by means of a procedure which has existed in Scotland for about 100 years. This Bill comes to us from the other place where it went through "on the nod". Accordingly, at no time has this Bill been explained or, indeed, commended. I must admit that its drafting is not easy to understand. Nevertheless, I have to express my gratitude and thanks to the draftsman for finding his way through six Acts of Parliament and for producing a Bill. At first glance, the Bill is not very easy to understand, but what is more important

867
is that it affects a considerable number of people with small estates who may very well not be acquainted with lawyers. In any case, this is something which is unlikely to happen to anybody except once in a lifetime.
The original Act goes back just over 100 years, to when Disraeli was Prime Minister. It provided a simple method of confirmation of an estate in the event of the decease of the father. This could be done by the widows or by the children. It was cheap and it was easy, and it enabled the successors to become possessed of their property in the simplest manner. Above all, it did not need the employment of solicitors or lawyers. However, there was one limitation. At that time the estate had to be not greater than £150. In the following year the procedure was extended from intestate succession to include testate succession, and it has remained like that ever since.
In 1881, during the beneficent period of Mr. Gladstone's Government, the sum was raised to £300, but an important innovation was introduced: that any applicant—apparently it was not confined only to widows and children—could make an application under this procedure. Under the beneficent Government of Lord Rosebery the sum was further raised in 1894 to £500, and under Mr. Macmillan's Government it was again raised in 1961 to £1,000 net, or £3,000 gross. The intention today is to bring this limitation up to modern requirements. Accordingly, the sum is raised to £10,000. It allows for inflation in the future, in that this sum can be increased by Statutory Instrument on behalf of the Secretary of State. Similarly, fees in connection with it can be updated.
May I very shortly outline the procedure, because it should be generally known by those who are likely to be concerned. Anybody in this position who makes an application can go to the sheriff clerk or to the commissary office, bringing with him, in the case of intestate succession, two witnesses who identify him and his relationship. He has to take an oath in respect of the inventory. The rest of the work is done by the sheriff clerk. So the procedure is extremely simple. He may have to find a cautioner to make quite certain that the debts are paid. The cost
868
is very remarkable. As far as I can make out, it would be one half of 1 per cent., which is a very great deal less than would be charged in the event of solicitors being employed.
I am given to understand that this procedure has the support of the Lord Advocate. It is a most desirable step which will affect quite a large number of people. I feel that the Bill will be of great value to them in making possible their succession to small estates which otherwise it would be more expensive to claim. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
2.57 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk for sponsoring this Bill. May I also thank him for explaining its purpose and content. As my noble friend said, the Bill went through another place without any debate or explanation. That is a reflection of the fact that it is needed in Scotland.
My noble friend has drawn attention to the simplified procedure where small estates are concerned. I hope that this fact will come to the attention of anybody who, in the future, could benefit from these provisions. I understand also that the Bill has the blessing of the Government, although I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will confirm this in due course.
As my noble friend pointed out, at first the limit was £150 in the last century. This is now to become £10,000. Certainly it is a reflection upon the rate of inflation. I welcome the fact that the Statutory Instrument procedure is to be used in future, because this should make it easier for changes to be carried out by both Houses. This seems to me to be a sensible arrangement. I think that my noble friend is to be congratulated on taking up this Bill and piloting it through your Lordships' House.
2.59 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to express our gratitude to the noble Earl for bringing forward this Bill which is intended to simplify and update the old Act to which

869
he referred. His explanation was most helpful; because of the number of Acts which have been passed since the original one, the exact intention of this new legislation was not entirely clear to me.
It may be worth having a look at what the value of £150 in 1875 would be today. According to the Economist Desk Diary, £150 is shown to be the equivalent today of £2,619. That gives us some idea of the strength of inflation, if that is the right word, over the years. I feel that the figure of £10,000 which is incorporated in the Bill will adequately cover the eventuality of inflation continuing at an even faster rate in years to come. I see from the last sentence of the Bill that it is to be deemed to have been passed before the Scotland Bill was passed. I feel that this is an intensely Scottish Bill to which there is no English equivalent. I am advised that there is no need to go for this process in England. It is merely negotiated directly with a court, but I welcome this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has done, and wish it well.
3 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House and for the explanations which I am sure will be found most helpful by those who find themselves covered by its provisions. As the noble Earl pointed out, the original purpose of the statutes which this Bill amends was to reduce the expenses involved in confirmation to a deceased's estate where the estate was of a small amount. Reference has been made to the fact that the rise reflects inflation. I think it does rather more than that; it also represents a growth in prosperity. What we called "small" in those days we should call "tiny" today. The term "confirmation" in Scotland really means the ratification by the court of an appointment as executor. The limits, starting at £150, have been periodically increased over the years by legislation and it is apparent that some type of continuous up-dating is necessary if we are to keep pace with the changes in the value of money.
For this reason I believe that one of the most important features of the Bill is that this up-dating need no longer be done by primary legislation but can be
870
done by order made by the Secretary of State. That is the subsection in Clause 1 on which I think Clause 3(3), referring to the Scotland Act, bites because in the event of the Scotland Act being brought into operation then the responsibility for up-dating the amount would fall upon a member of the Scottish Executive. The Bill certainly has the blessing of the Government and the support of the Lord Advocate, and indeed of all Ministers. We welcome the Bill and believe that it will be of considerable assistance to those who are administering the estates of a deceased person.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not think I need say anything further except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the support he has given and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who has pointed out that in real terms compared with 100 years ago the amount that limits a small estate is about four times what it was—I repeat, in real terms. I think that is right and a proper step forward.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ESTATES AGENTS BILL
3.3 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("enter") in line 21, and insert—
("(a) if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed under this Act, in order to ascertain whether it has been committed").
The noble Lord said: I should first mention that this Amendment and the next Amendment are intended to be alternatives, so that if this Amendment is carried I should not feel it necessary to move Amendment No. 38. Clause 11 contains the enforcement provisions and I would first like to draw the attention of the Committee to the contrast between subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b). Paragraph (b) which deals with the enforcement officer's power to inspect documents is preceded by the words "If he has reasonable cause to suspect … an offence"; but, by contrast, paragraph (a), which purports to give him power of entry into premises, is not preceded by any words indicating that he has to have suspicion of any offence being committed. I said "purports" and I will come back a little later to the reason why I say it only purports to give him power of entry.
First, I should like to consider the question whether this enforcement provision in fact represents the Government policy on this Bill with regard to enforcement. I should like to quote a very short part of the speech of the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place in Standing Committee E on 30th November, at column 90 of the Official Report of that Standing Committee, where the Minister said:
"The trading standards officer or the enforcement officer can exercise these powers only if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed. If he goes merely on a fishing expedition or inspects merely as an arbitrary act, then he is himself breaking the law and is liable to action by the person whose premises are being inspected or whose books are being taken away".
The Committee may wonder, therefore, how it is that we are presented with a clause which is a total divergence from the Minister's stated policy about enforcement. I am afraid that the answer is that what we are presented with is an enforcement provision which has been lifted bodily from other legislation designed for quite other purposes. The last occasion—and I remember it very well—was when this enforcement provision was introduced into a Bill last summer, and it went into the Consumer Safety Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
I ventured to make a suggestion on the last Amendment which we dealt with on
872
the present Bill rather late the other evening—and perhaps I may be forgiven for repeating this short point because there are many more Members of the Committee present this afternoon than there were then. What I ventured to say was that if an enforcement officer is concerned with the safety of goods and is looking round for goods which may be unsafe, it is one thing to allow him to go "fishing" (to use the Minister's expression) in warehouses, although he may not have any suspicion against the warehouse owner. But I went on to say the other evening that of course the estate agents are in a rather different position because estate agents do not keep their goods on the premises. What estate agents have on the premises of course are their documents and if, as is the case under subsection (1)(b), the officer is not allowed to inspect the documents unless he suspects an offence he is really not going to get very far if he goes into those premises without having any suspicion. It seems to me that all he will do is to incur the grave displeasure of the Minister in charge of the Bill.
The second point is that subsection (1)(a) only purports to give the officer this power to enter without suspicion. This becomes apparent when we consider what happens in the quite likely event of admission being refused. The clause deals with that situation in subsection (4), where it says that the officer can go to a magistrate and can get a warrant from the magistrate, if the magistrate first is satisfied that admission to the premises has been refused, but only if the magistrate is also satisfied that there is reasonable cause to suspect the commission of an offence. At that point the enforcement officer comes unstuck; he comes up against a fence which he is unable to surmount. That is why I venture to say to the Committee that subsection (1)(a) only purports to give him power of entry without suspecting an offence. What (1)(a) really amounts to and boils down to is that an officer may go in without suspecting an offence unless admission is refused. But one does not need an Act of Parliament to achieve that position. We can all go in anywhere provided admission is not refused.
The noble Lord, Lord Darling, told us the other evening that of course trading standards officers are not out to catch people and institute prosecutions; they

873
are out to help people. I venture to suggest that Parliament owes a duty to enforcement officers to help them and not put them in the false position of supposing that they have an unrestricted right of entry without entertaining suspicion when it turns out that they have in fact no such right, and that if they attempt to exercise it against a determined estate agent they are liable to come unstuck.
So the purpose of this Amendment is to turn subsection (1)(a), which at the moment is unenforceable, into something which is enforceable by inserting the words, "if he has reasonable grounds for suspicion". Then subsection (1)(a) and subsection (4), which gives magistrates power to issue a warrant if there is suspicion, will fit together and make sense. At the moment subsection (1)(a) is simply an empty shell. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in the Amendment he has moved. I think we should consider very carefully the proposition he has made, and also bear in mind what has been said in another place about trading standards officers. I think we are glad that the noble Lord, Lord Darling, took part in the discussions we had on the last occasion, but I would remind him here this afternoon of what his right honourable friend said in another place. The Minister of State, Mr. Fraser, was asked this question:
"What assurance can the Minister give that the officers appointed"—
—that is, of course, the trading standards officers—
"by local authorities know something about estate agency work and have experience of the background?"
The Minister replied:
"They will be trading standards officers. They have responsibilities ranging from animal diseases to the inspection of certificates in sauna parlours. They do not need to know much about estate agency. They need to know the law relating to their inspection duties and to have a good fund of commonsense".—[Official Report] (Commons, Standing Committee E), 30/11/78; c. 96.)
I think we ought to pause here and consider very carefully the role of trading standards officers. We have been reminded that, of course, a police officer is in an entirely different position. No police officer, as your Lordships are well aware, may enter premises without a search warrant. Under the Bill, the
874
Government are, as the clause is drafted at the moment, empowering the trading standards officer to enter with only a very hazy idea that an offence has been committed.
I have no doubt that trading standards officers do act and have acted in the past in the best way they possibly can, but let us consider the situation in an estate agency. An estate agency is essentially a property which is open to the public during reasonable hours, normally laid down, and of course any person can enter those premises. But the point is that the duly authorised officer may go anywhere within the premises, and that, of course, is a very important factor. He may look at any book or document if he has reasonable cause, and that of course follows in (1)(b). I feel that there are the strongest grounds for considering the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the matter which he has raised.
Lord JANNER: I have listened very carefully. I think that the members of my own profession are very keen that there should not be anything in the nature of free access to premises. Quite frankly I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been put forward, for this reason: An officer is not going to walk into a place if he has not got some kind of reason to believe that something is happening. It must be the case, unless someone is suggesting they have malice against an individual, or something of that nature, that he will not walk into a place without believing that something untoward is happening. To do so would be absurd because it would mean that officers could go bobbing into one estate agent or another instead of acting like sensible people who feel that something untoward is happening.
I do hope that the noble Lords who are pressing this matter will withdraw it, because it really implies a slur on the officers. Certainly, no officer is likely to abuse a position of this kind. Of course, we understand that if a person refuses to let an officer in there is a procedure which enables the latter to give a reason for entering. I really cannot believe that these officers are going indiscriminately to walk into a place without some kind of suspicion that there is something wrong.
Lord SANDYS: May I say, before the noble Lord continues further, that there was not the slightest intention to cast a slur upon the trading standards officers. What we maintain is that the trading standards officer is in a false position under the Bill.
Lord JANNER: Of course, I understand that. But I think the noble Lord is mistaken. I think he is underestimating the common sense of an officer who is put in that position. I do not think they are going to be so foolish as to attempt to enter premises if they have not got some sort of suspicion that there is something wrong.
3.20 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: When I read the answer to the question in Committee which was given by my right honourable friend, I was rather disturbed. I think we can excuse it to some extent because it was not a prepared statement but a reply to a question. What I think my right honourable friend was saying—and in the context this would be perfectly sound—was that the trading standards officers cover a very wide field of activity, but the various Acts call on them to be qualified officers in regard to the Act they are administering. Therefore, although enforcement will fall legally on the local authority, in practice it will be for the chief trading standards officer of a local authority to ensure that two or three of his staff become fully qualified to deal with estate agency work. In that context, although I would agree that perhaps the choice of words is maladroit, I think that what the Minister was saying is perfectly sound, and, of course, we must bear in mind that the various statutes to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred call for qualified officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that, by extending this consumer protection legislation to estate agents, we are breaking new ground. I tried to say on the last occasion that we are not doing so, because services of this kind—I agree that they are not exactly analogous—are covered, and have been covered for 12 years, by the Trade Descriptions Act. That Act refers, among other services, to travel agents. Therefore, there is nothing new about this.
876
Three Amendments have been tabled in this connection and, if noble Lords will permit me, I should like to make only one speech instead of repeating myself on three occasions. It is obvious from the way that discussions have developed on this and similar legislation, that someone must say something about the way in which the trading standards services of local authorities work, because it is that practical fact that tends to be omitted. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will allow me to make a speech covering that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who I think is making progress in his understanding of this legislation, now concedes that a trading standards officer should have a free right of access when he is dealing with hazardous or potentially dangerous goods. Of course, it would be quite wrong to say that an officer cannot enter a dairy to ensure that the milk is pure unless he has a search warrant. There must be routine visits.
I do not think that the noble Lord even yet understands the scope of the service. Whenever we have a debate he brings forward another Act at which he has been looking. In point of fact the service covers 19 statutes and 200 regulations. Therefore, there is plenty of scope for maladministration and yet, whenever I ask during these debates for any noble Lord to bring me evidence of maladministration, there is no response. The reason in part lies in the fact that there is a good tradition of service, and it is also due to the long experience of the senior officers; but what is far more fundamental is that it happens to be a local government service.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who pointed to the dangers that may arise—and he gave evidence of dangers that have arisen—in a central Government State service where inspectors are given new duties, and over-zealous inspectors overstep the mark. It can be exaggerated, but I agree that there is a danger in that connection. However, there is something that is far more serious: how is the aggrieved trader, who has a genuine complaint about the way he is being treated, to get redress? To whom does he go? He may find out the address of the central office somewhere in

877
Whitehall, or Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Swansea. He may write a letter to that address or he may take the matter up with his Member of Parliament; and his Member of Parliament will then take it up with the Minister. It is all too remote.
That, I think, is the basis of the complaint that the noble Lord was bringing forward about this type of service. I agree with him, but, of course, it does not apply in local government service. If a trader has a complaint about the conduct of a trading standards officer he can deal with it right away, on the same day. He probably knows the name of the chief officer but, if not, at least the address of the chief officer is in the telephone book. If he does not receive a satisfactory response from that approach he can go to the boss of the chief trading standards officer, or perhaps I should say to one of 20 or so of his bosses—the members of the trading standards committee of the county council. They appoint the senior officers and they must approve the appointments of all the staff. Surely no trading standards officer of any rank, if he is thinking of his career, will want to have a stack of complaints piled up against him—of course not. That, I think, is the fundamental difference between the two types of services, and at least one of the main reasons why there are so few complaints from traders about this service.
I have said that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has found, as he has studied this matter, that there are statutes under which he agrees that the trading standards officer should have freedom of access; and I think that he would also agree to concede that, as regards unsafe goods, these include the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, the Medicines Act, the Petroleum Act and other statutes of that kind in which health and safety are involved. However, there are other measures as regards which I am also sure he would concede the right of free access. We do not want, for example, weights and measures inspectors to have a search warrant to test scales and weighing machines in shops. After all, if a weighing machine is faulty there is a fifty-fifty chance that it will be faulty in the customer's favour. The appropriate Act—the Weights and Measures Act—gives the officers the statutory duty to
878
test all weighing machines in the country, and therefore they do not need a search warrant.
I believe that as we have more of these discussions the noble Lord will eventually come around to my point of view that they should have free access for everything, for the reason that, if it is important that they have free access with routine visits to ensure that health and safety rules are not being breached, then it is equally important that they should make routine visits to ensure that an honest trader is not being subjected to dishonest competition. Time and again the evidence of dishonest competition arises not out of complaints—under the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment they would then have access on a search warrant—but from routine visits as regards which they find evidence of chicanery and dishonesty. We must look at the legislation. It is called "consumer protection legislation", but the important point is that it is legislation for the protection of honest traders. Therefore, for that reason, too, I think that they should continue to have freedom of access.
However, there are other issues involved. Another good reason why noble Lords cannot find any complaints against these local government officers is that they earn the goodwill of the traders with whom they deal. They must earn such goodwill in order to do their job properly. They earn it by providing advice and information services on a very large scale. In all deference, I would suggest that if this trading standards service is to be subjected to this kind of examination, noble Lords should go and look at it to discover how it works, instead of raising these theoretical arguments, many of which have no basis in fact whatever.
As I have said, the officers for whom I speak earn the goodwill of the traders, the honest traders. During the last debate I gave the example of South Yorkshire. I do not want to go over it again, but one figure at least is important. Of the 40,000 complaints which that service received last year in South Yorkshire, in the opinion of the officers only 9,000 were serious enough to warrant a visit to the traders concerned. Arising from those 9,000 visits there were 100 prosecutions. Most of the complaints that were substantiated were dealt with by the officers giving

879
advice and help to the traders to ensure that they did not commit the offence again. That is how it works, and that is how it should work.
I should like to make just one further observation in case the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, follows up the argument that he advanced on the last occasion, that an estate agent will be put at a disadvantage if his clients see a trading standards officer going into his premises. I shall do it in this way. All of us go shopping in shops of all kinds. We go into pubs, cafes and restaurants; we buy petrol at petrol stations; we take our cars to garages for repairs, and so on. All those activities come under the supervision of these officers carrying out their duties under 19 Acts of Parliament and 200 regulations.
Has any noble Lord ever seen one of these officers at work? Has he, knowingly, seen a local government inspector or a trading standards officer at work in any of those premises? The odds are well over 1 million to one against anyone knowingly seeing these inspectors or officers at work. It is a most unobtrusive service, and for a very good reason: these officers have earned the goodwill of the traders with whom they deal. It is quite true that we may have seen some of these officers at work but have not realised who they are; the chap dealing with the scales in a shop would probably appear to be a mechanic from the scales company, but in reality he is a local inspector adjusting the scales. So it goes on.
I emphasise that the service has developed in such a way that the main work of these officers is not to prosecute, but to give advice and help. Therefore, I suggest that these Amendments should be withdrawn and that the traders themselves—in this case the Estate Agents' Association—should be approached. Let that Association decide whether it wants these Amendments included in the Bill. If it does, let us look at the matter again on Report. However, I am absolutely convinced that the reply from the Estate Agents' Association will be that it does not want the Amendments. In that case, why press them?
The Earl of CAITHNESS: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I cannot speak for the Estate Agents' Association, but the
880
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors certainly wants these Amendments.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I am going on the correspondence that I have had from the Estate Agents' Association—and this is an Estate Agents Bill. If the surveyors want to change anything in the Bill, surely it would not be this clause. Nobody is suggesting that the surveyors will be put at a disadvantage by keeping the Bill as it is. In any case, we now have a conflict of opinion. Who is to decide? We have to decide on the basis of the evidence that we receive, and the evidence is that the Estate Agents' Association does not want these Amendments. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to withdraw the Amendments, and let us consult the Estates Agents' Association again, to ask whether it wants these Amendments.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out that the Corporation of Estate Agents and the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers certainly want the Amendments.
Lord AIREDALE: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would declare his interest in this matter. I know that on other occasions he has formally declared his interest in this matter. However, I am not sure that he did so this afternoon. Therefore, will he kindly do so?
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I declared my interest in the previous debate and did not think that I needed to do it again. However, in case anyone does not know, I am the president of the professional institute of the trading standards officers.
3.38 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, will not mind if I use an analogy that came to mind during his speech. It is the analogy of a bowl of prunes. In spite of the necessity to beware of the stones in the prunes, to accept some of them could do one much good, but to eat the lot could be quite disastrous. There is a need for these Amendments. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors want them, as do the valuers. We have been to the agents who will be affected by the Bill

881
and their answer is, "Yes, we want the Amendments". Therefore, I do not think that we should wait for the Report Stage; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, should ask the Committee to decide on these Amendments, which I strongly support.
I am still worried about this innuendo of suspicion which is caused by a visit from a trading standards officer. The work that an agent does is so very different from that done by a normal shop. It is true to say that he is selling goods, but he sells something which is the most expensive purchase a normal person makes, and in many instances is probably a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. If the word gets out that the trading standards officer was at the premises—and I do not dispute that he normally does his job as quietly as possible—the difference in the work would be such that suspicion might be caused, and that point still worries me.
I should like to raise a point of detail on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, during the first part of this Committee stage. It might help to clarify the proceedings if he would tell the Committee the name of the noble Lord to whom he referred at column 149 of Hansard. If he was referring to me, I would point out that I was not present during the Second Reading debate. Perhaps the Committee could be enlightened on that matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will ask the Committee to decide on these Amendments; they are very worth while and have the full support of all the agents.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to support these two Amendments. I do not propose to speak in the debate on the Motion to leave out Clause 11, but wish instead to speak now because these Amendments seek to do the same thing. There is no doubt that the professional bodies are strongly opposed to this clause and find it highly objectionable. The offence created under Clause 9(4) makes it unnecessary; after all, the maximum fine on conviction for failure to provide information is £1,000. Surely that is an adequate deterrent. As it stands, the Bill will allow an official to demand entry without warrant, and break into files and boxes if he wishes to do so. The trading standards officers may have a very high reputation—I would not doubt that they probably have—but I
882
think it is silly to suggest that there are not some among them (I have come across one recently) who are young, keen and inexperienced. One encounters them occasionally. They are not representative, but this sort of chap could barge into an office and demand to see boxes, break into files of an estate agent, who would probably he refusing to allow him to do so. This action would be known immediately to staff and customers. The information would get out and seriously damage the reputation of an agent.
The agent need not even be in his own office at the time, because he could be informed, as would require to be done under line 45, while he was perhaps in his office elsewhere a few miles away. There is no parallel to the VAT inspectors. There is no parallel with unsafe goods or food, where obviously time is of the essence. There is no parallel with weights and measures, which certainly is an advisory service, like so many. This is a disciplinary matter. They can only come in if they have cause to come in, and this therefore implies that it is disciplinary and not advisory.
Furthermore, the profession objects that they are singled out among all other professions for this forced entry and inspection, should the inspectors so wish. The issuing of a warrant is the minimum protection needed against any vexatious, bureaucratic interference which may occur, be it ever so seldom. Unless he can show reasonable cause there should be no entry unless there is prior agreement to visit by appointment.
3.42 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I am not an estate agent, nor am I a chartered surveyor. I do not go around offering for sale desirable residences with all mod. cons., but I want to make a comparison between the wording of the Bill and the wording of the Amendment. I suggest that we want to be fair to the estate agents, although no estate agents have been in correspondence with me and neither have any chartered surveyors. The Bill as it stands says:
"… in order to ascertain whether an offence has been committed …".
Prima facie that is conveying to the estate agent himself, and to the tradesmen in

883
the neighbouring premises, that he is, for the time being at least, innocent. If we look at the terms of the Amendment, it states:
"… if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed …".
Surely that indicates to the estate agent himself, and to his neighbouring shopkeepers, that he is not innocent; that most probably he is guilty. I want to be very brief indeed and not make a Second Reading speech. We want to be fair to the estate agents. I suggest that there is a greater degree of fairness in the original wording of the Bill than there is in this Amendment, which immediately plants the stamp of guilt on any estate agent whose premises the trading officers may enter.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think that the arguments that come from this clause and these Amendments are anything to do with estate agents, surveyors, or trading standards officers. This is to do with Parliament in its biggest and widest responsibility. We are here once again interfering in some way with the freedom of the individual to run his show and run his life in a normal way. If you take any of the occasions where we give authority to people to break into houses, offices, and take away books, in individual cases you can in theory make out a strong case. The noble Lord does. He is very persuasive. But if you add them together, it becomes clear that you are no longer in charge of your premises; no longer in charge of your business. You have to add to this particular clause the numbers of other people who have authority to break in and to interfere.
Now we have got to the stage where almost all our freedoms are being whittled away. I am not exaggerating. I do not know how many businesses the noble Lord has to run from day to day, but I am interested as an owner in two different types of business which come under the investigation of these various offices, and I would tell him that it is damaging. It is interfering with the efficient running of a business, and with people who are honest and want to run it properly. It interferes with the morale of your staff when one or other of these officers comes in.
I believe that because all those things happen to a greater or lesser extent, it is
884
not unreasonable for the officer who wants to make an investigation in order to do his duty to have to satisfy somebody else by getting a warrant, and making out a prima facie case, before he inflicts on the property owner, or the businessman, the indignity and the interference of being able to walk in in this way. I support my noble friend's argument, too. I would say overwhelmingly that trading standards officers are people who could be trusted, but all our laws are to deal with the minorities who are not to be trusted. That is what all the laws are about. The majority of people are honest and decent. The majority of people are good neighbours. But because a minority are not, we have to have policemen and regulations. In terms of businesses such as we are discussing now we have to give certain powers in order that certain investigations can be made, but some of the officers are not to be trusted. Often it is not necessarily because they deliberately want to do the wrong thing, but because they get enthusiastic and get their emotions out of context. Extra powers such as these do go to the heads of some people. We find that with some policemen, and with others given this authority. Because we know that, we have to be careful in Parliament when we are chiselling away, however marginally, at our freedoms to run our businesses and our houses in our own way.
I hope that the noble Lords who have Amendments down will put them to the vote. I should like to see once again how careful Parliament is in looking after the freedom of the individual. We are not saying that the officers shall not get the information. We are not saying that they shall not be able to carry out the instructions given to them if this Bill becomes an Act. We are saying that where in doing their duty they are likely to come into conflict with the free, honest running of a business, they ought prima facie to satisfy somebody other than themselves before they infringe on the liberties and the freedoms of people running that business.
3.48 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I think that your Lordships are fully entitled to scrutinise a clause of this kind very carefully indeed. My noble friend Lord Darling has just made a most

885
persuasive speech. He described this as an estate agent's Bill, but it is a public Bill and it affects the rights of the citizen. The liberty of the subject is involved in this clause. Whenever any proposal is made for a further erosion of the liberty of the subject it is the duty of Parliament to examine that proposal closely indeed. Here we have a Bill which is partly for the protection of estate agents themselves, but, probably more important, for the protection of the public. One has to reconcile the duty to the public with the duty to the citizen. Each have their rights, and they have to be brought together in some acceptable harmony before we can be satisfied with what we are doing.
This clause, and the provision which is the subject of the Amendment, goes as wide as the Exchange Control Act 1947, which is probably wider than nearly all legislation since dealing with the right of entry. Certainly it goes wider than the right of entry conferred upon officers of the Inland Revenue. The provision in the Bill reads:
"in order to ascertain whether an offence has been committed under this Act",
whereas the Amendment substitutes:
If he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed under this Act".
These are two very different criteria, and, in the case of the Inland Revenue, the latter are the words of the Amendment that Parliament in its widsom used in recent extensions of the right of entry of the Inland Revenue. I believe we are coming to the stage when it is desirable that the whole question of the right of entry should come within some common code of law and practice. We are dealing with these matters piecemeal and we think we are adjusting rights of entry to the needs of a particular situation, but by the time the pattern is complete we see a very wide extension of the rights of entry into premises belonging to the private citizen.
Admittedly, premises used wholly as a private dwelling are excluded in this case, but in the income tax Acts and Exchange Control Act 1947 a dwellinghouse is not excluded. Here we have differences of rights of entry according to the particular statute law which is under consideration. But there are really only one citizen and one code of rights of civil liberty which have to be looked at in connection with
886
proposals of this kind, and I am uneasy about the clause as it stands and for that reason would favour the Amendment.
I entirely agree with those who advance the integrity, common sense and judgment of individuals into whose hands is entrusted the right of entry. I have no doubt they are conscientious members of the bureaucracy. They are discharging in many cases a distasteful task in the most acceptable possible way, but some dreadful things happen and one day I believe it will be desirable to bring out some of the methods adopted when people exercise the right of forcible entry—and that right is contained later in this clause. It requires of course the fiat of a magistrate to do so, as it does in the case of the Exchange Control Act 1947, but in the case of the income tax Acts it requires a certificate by a circuit judge. The House of Commons would not give the magistracy the right to authorise a search warrant in the case of the Inland Revenue—they said it must go to a circuit judge—but in the Exchange Control Act 1947 it is a magistrate and under this Bill it is a magistrate, so again we have differences between the authorities who may authorise forcible entry.
Noble Lords will understand that when a search warrant is issued and the officers concerned go to execute it, they are anxious to discharge their task as expeditiously as possible, but they want to take away as many documents as they think will be required; a clean sweep may be made and a business may be brought to a standstill by the extent of the documents which may be seized as possibly being relevant. They do not have to stop there and then and convince the poor citizen—if he is poor, or hapless as he mostly is—that all they are taking is arguably relevant to what they are investigating. There is no opportunity for that debate to take place on the premises while the search is in progress. They are all swept into the bags and there is a van outside waiting to take them away. That is how it is done, and then everything is sorted out at leisure by those who have seized the documents.
In some cases the right of entry is put in the hands of civilians; in other cases the right of entry is reserved to the police. In the case of the Obscene I Publications Act it is the police who raid

887
the premises and not civilians; to stop imported goods which may be caught under the obscenity laws is the duty of the Customs and Excise officials, though no immediate raid on a citizen's premises is involved in stopping goods as they are landed from a ship or an aeroplane, as the case may be. Believe me, there are aspects of this problem which, if one comes rather close to it, show many respects in which there should be an understood and publicised code of practice.
The Judges' Rules are made public regarding the conditions in which, for example, suspected persons may be interrogated. There are often criticisms of the methods of the police in that connection and proposals are often put forward as to the rights of accused persons in those conditions. Apparently these are not fully understood and are not always conceded when they are asked for. But here it is very easy indeed to think of the broad public good, which we all acknowledge, without examining the effect on individuals in given circumstances which may give rise to deep concern as to how we are treating people in the name of the overriding good of the community.
I believe that if we are to concede this further right of entry—and if we did not have the Bill at all we should not be considering this fresh extension of the right of entry; it is an accompaniment of almost every piece of consumer protection, every piece of statute law regarding the enforcement of taxation or exchange control and other matters which are of great public importance—we must be very careful to be satisfied that what we are doing is essential in the public interest notwithstanding the fact that it may cause hardship or even injustice to individuals in the process. One can identify a police officer but one cannot always identify a civilian officer. One can ask to see a police officer's warrant. With civilian officers, in some cases one could be faced not with one but with perhaps 10, in some cases as many as 20, and in one case it was 30. The persons who had the right of entry were listed on a sheet of paper in that instance, but one could not be certain who was who on the premises and exercising the rights under the search warrant that had been granted to them.
Even if we are here all night, it is still desirable to remember that with every
888
fresh attempt to erode the liberty of the subject, which in sum total may amount to a great deal of restraint on civil liberty, we are justified in examining the proposal very closely indeed. I am not at the moment debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but so far as this provision is concerned I believe it would be reasonable to accept the Amendment so that, at least where these rights are to be exercised, there is reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, rather than leave it on the basis that entry may take place in order to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. There should be reasonable suspicion about something before one goes into premises to exercise the rights which are provided for in this clause.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would remind noble Lords, and particularly the mover of the Amendment, that we have been through this before. I seem to recall that throughout the passage of the Trade Descriptions Bill the noble Lord raised, rightly in his view, the very same point. I certainly recall that in the debates on the Dangerous Drugs Bill I had the misfortune to be on the receiving end from noble Lords opposite when they said we were eroding the freedom of the individual.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that one gets the impression nowadays from some interesting examples in the newspapers, that we are very much on the side of the citizen even though the citizen has committed an offence; that we have been so anxious to protect the powers and privacy of the citizen that we have actually allowed villains to operate because we have been a little nervous to enforce certain laws. I have never heard evidence to the effect that under the Trade Descriptions Act enforcement officers have had to use the kind of emotive language which has been referred to, or that they have "rushed" into offices or indeed into shops in some numbers, and forced open files (presumably with crowbars, though we have not actually been told that) in order to gather information.
Like many other of your Lordships, run an organisation of business. One has visits from such people as the crime prevention officer. He questions one about the doors to premises and about

889
people entering and leaving the premises. Similarly, one also has visits from the fire prevention officer. Indeed, there are innumerable people whom we invite to our premises and whom we pay very highly. I have in mind, for example, auditors who visit premises to search books, so that we can produce balance sheets which satisfactorily comply with the Companies Acts.
I feel that much nonsense has been generated about this "poor citizen". Incidentally, I do not think I have ever met a poor estate agent, though possibly there are such people—presumably, those who have become bankrupt. Here I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. If it is normal procedure for people to be allowed to enter premises, that is one matter, and no one will take any notice of it. The enforcement officers will not be searching for work; there are not too many of them, as we well know. However, if on the other hand, they were operating on grounds of suspicion, that would certainly be known, and I think would be very undesirable. Clauses of this kind are inserted in almost all Acts of Parliament. This is done so that the rogues can be rooted out. But I can recall no evidence throughout my lifetime to suggest that honest people are subjected to harassment, or that enforcement officers enter premises against people's will. If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide, and you will be quite happy for any enforcement officer or policeman to visit you.
4.2 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We have had a rather extensive and at times passionate debate. I consider that so far as the Bill is concerned, we should confine ourselves to the situation which it needs to put right; namely, to get rid of, or check upon, the rogue estate agent, of whom there are very few. The remainder are of good repute, are well able to take care of themselves, and need have no fear whatever of interference in their work. They have high standards in their associations, and noble Lords should not get too worried about such estate agents.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, seem to have got their briefs in a twist. As I understand it, two professional associations
890
want the Amendments, and one (the National Association) does not. Thus it is a two-to-one situation, and the agents themselves are divided. The best course I can take is to reply in some detail to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Although the noble Lord has spoken only to Amendment No. 37, it seems that both this Amendment and Amendment No. 38 are essentially directed at the same point; namely, that trading standards officers should not have an unrestricted right of access to premises where estate agency work may be carried out, or if they have such a right, should not be free to take away books and documents.
I wish to deal first with the detailed points raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and then I should like to show that the clause, far from being mere slavish copying from earlier precedents, is designed to give enforcement authorities just the powers they need for the purposes of the Bill, balancing against that the need to avoid interference with the liberty of the subject, about which we have heard much during the speeches on the Amendment. I should also like to suggest that in the interests of both enforcement authorities and the subject there is a virtue in consistency.
The noble Lord has said that paragraph (a) is ineffective: if admission is refused there is nothing that the officer can do. That is not so. The power to enter premises is conferred so as to relieve the officer from a charge of trespass. It is true that one does not normally think of oneself as trespassing when one goes into a public office, but that is because the owner of the office has given an implied licence to the public to enter it for the purpose of doing business with him. That licence does not extend to others. The owner would be quite within his rights to throw out a vagrant, for example. If the owner were to put up a notice stating, "No trading standards officer may enter," that would not be refusal of entry; it would be an express declaration that the implied licence did not extend to trading standards officers, whatever their business. Entry would be refused within the meaning of the clause only if, at a reasonable hour and on production of his credentials, a trading standards officer sought admission for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence had been committed, and was told to go away.

891
It will be an offence under the Bill wilfully to tell an officer to go away in such circumstances. That is the effect of Clause 27(1) (b). (Incidentally, that is why the notice would be ineffective: the law would not presume that a person intended to commit the offence.) So once he has been refused entry in the way that I have described, the trading standards officer would be able to obtain a warrant under subsection (4), because the magistrate could properly be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that an offence had been committed. I think that that explanation disposes of the charge of illogicality.
Whatever its merits, or otherwise, the clause is internally consistent. Indeed, the noble Lord's Amendment would destroy this consistency. If an agent could refuse entry for no reason without committing an offence, it might well be that no warrant could be issued. The enforcement authority would have no means of discovering whether an offence had been committed.
I now turn to the charge that the provision in the Bill as it stands is an invasion of the liberty of the subject—a matter which of course concerns us all. I do not deny that the clause relies heavily on precedents, and in a moment I hope to justify that approach. However, it is right to follow a precedent only if it is appropriate and fits the novel circumstances to which it is applied. I submit that it does exactly that. The Bill controls an activity, not a defined class of persons. Anyone can be engaged in estate agency work. The greengrocer who acts as an intermediary in domestic property within the meaning of Clause 1 is doing so.
In the interests of economy and of not imposing an unnecessary bureaucratic structure, the Bill does not require those engaged in estate agency work, as defined, to take out a licence. The honest and competent agent should find that the Bill hardly impinges upon him. Instead, the Bill confers power to ban the rogue. It is thus far more necessary than it would have been under a licensing system for enforcement authorities to know where estate agency work is being carried out, so that they can check on compliance with the requirements of the Bill. The provision which the Amendments would restrict seeks to give the enforcement
892
authority the right to do just that, and no more. The trading standards officer can go into an office to listen and observe. If, for example, he sees deposits being taken when there is no certificate of insurance displayed, the other provisions of the clause will come into operation, and he will be able to ask to see the books. It would be just as wrong to deny him this right as it would be to give him an unrestricted right of access to private papers. It is my view that the clause is exactly appropriate to the circumstances as we see them. Paragraph (a) is the starting point from which the greater powers in the remainder of the clause flow.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the wider question. It is surely right, and in the interests of everyone, that the powers of trading standards officers should conform to a general pattern unless there is good reason to depart from it. It means that the trading standards officer can work to a consistent set of rules. He will become used to them, and will know what he can and cannot do. In this way, he is unlikely to overstep his powers in a particular case. Similarly, the agent, who may also be engaged in the provision of credit or of insurance, or even, as I have mentioned, of vegetables, is entitled to expect a clear and consistent system of control for all his activities. He should not always be having to consider whether his rights in one case are slightly greater or slightly less than in another case. That would be a recipe for conflict and distrust. There is a saying, "hard cases make bad law". I would suggest that the best way to promote a harmonious relationship between trading standards officers and the traders with whom they deal is to make the legal framework in which they operate as simple as possible. That is achieved by using standard form clauses whenever they are appropriate.
I do not think there is anything more I can say at this stage. I do not think noble Lords need have the fears which have been expressed in some quarters of the Committee today; I think they have been raised unduly. This is purely a correct and proper way of checking on people who are fleecing the customer; that is, the rogues. As I have already stated, in this particular instance it is my view and advice that as far as the estate agents' profession is concerned the cases are few and far between.

893
Certainly, again as I have already stated, those in their professional organisations have their own set of rules and controls, and therefore need not have the slightest fear or worry. As two organisations out of three have already indicated their support of the Bill as it stands, I hope the Committee will consider this position carefully and not accept the Amendment as it is proposed at the present time.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think he may have misheard me. The two professional bodies which I mentioned are in full agreement with that referred to by my noble friend Lord Caithness. Not only that, but they feel extremely strongly about this.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Could the noble Lord also reply, please, to a question I raised the last time we were in Committee? That is, what is the remedy that an innocent agent has if his premises are visited by a trading standards officer and as a result of that visit his trade is injuriously affected?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I do not think there is any risk whatever. I cannot envisage a situation in which there would be any injury. A trading standards officer, having had reason—and this is the important point—to visit an estate agent, the proceedings between the two would be confidential. News of this would not be widespread; no one would be talking to the local newspaper, and so on; and there would not be any prejudice. In any case, if the man is innocent he has nothing to fear, and he will be told so.
Lord AIREDALE: We have had quite a long debate, and I propose to be brief in reply to it for fear that if I take much more time I may be throwing votes away. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have supported the Amendment. I am bound to say that I am extremely disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who said he was against the Amendment, because I thought his argument was entirely in support of it. The noble Lord said that these officers will not go in unless they think there is something untoward going on, unless they have some suspicion. That is what the Amendment introduces by using the words, "if he has reasonable cause to suspect". I had hoped that the noble Lord and I were ad unum on this point.
894
The noble Lord, Lord Darling, appeared to draw a distinction between the standards operated by the enforcement officers appointed by local authorities and those operated by other enforcement officers acting under the central Executive. I do not have the knowledge to go into that argument with him; I only find it slightly disturbing to think that there should be a separate standard in this way.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord to misinterpret what I was saying. I was supporting the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that there is a possible danger in the State service—the central Government service—in that it is so remote from the person who may have a grievance against it, and that that does not apply in local government services.
Lord AIREDALE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Then let me pass on to only one other matter concerning the noble Lord, Lord Darling. It seems to me that what the noble Lord did not face up to in his speech is this. What is the trading standards officer going to achieve in the estate agent's office? The agent does not have dangerous goods, he does not have weights and measures and weighing machines. What he does have are documents. But under paragraph (b) the officer may inspect the documents only if he has reasonable cause for suspicion. So what is he going to achieve by going, purely on spec, into the premises in the first place?
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: Does the noble Lord want me to reply?
Lord AIREDALE: It is entirely up to the noble Lord.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: Willingly, if the noble Lord will allow me. He is surely not going to suggest that every estate agent in this country has nothing but satisfied customers; and, as shown by the figures that I gave for South Yorkshire (admittedly about other forms of trading) when you establish an advisory service which becomes a complaints service, you are going to get complaints. The noble Lord is suggesting that the only way the

895
trading standards officer can deal with a complaint is by getting a search warrant. I say he should be allowed to go to the estate agent and say, "I have a complaint; can I see whether there is anything in it?", without a search warrant.
Lord AIREDALE: Very well; that is the noble Lord's explanation. Now let me come—because I want to be brief—to the Minister's speech, and mention quite quickly just two points. The Minister invoked Clause 27. That deals with obstruction; and we are to envisage a case in which the estate agent is prosecuted before the magistrates for obstruction. I do not know what experience the Minister has of the sort of things that go on in magistrates' courts, but what kind of sympathy does he think the enforcement officer would get before the magistrates? Would the court not say to him, "What were you doing putting yourself in a place in which you got yourself obstructed? Have you not-read subsection (4)? You were supposed to come to one of us for a warrant". I do not think the court would be very pleased with a prosecution for obstruction in the absence of any application for a warrant.
My final word is this. I really think that the most important part of this Amendment is that it prevents the enforcement officer from getting into a false position. If he comes up against an estate agent who knows the law and who says to him, "Have you any suspicions against me?", and he has to say. "No, it is a purely routine visit", and if the estate agent says, "Very well; off you go to the magistrate for a warrant; you are not coming in here without it", at that moment the officer will have come unstuck. He cannot exercise the right which the paragraph purports to give him because he cannot get his warrant since he does not have any suspicion. I suggest that we owe the hardworking enforcement officer better service than that. That is the basic point of this Amendment, and I think that we should test the matter in the Division Lobby.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Exeter, M.

Pender, L.

Alport, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Porritt, L.

Amherst, E.

Fletcher, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sandford, L.

Auckland, L.

Glasgow, E.

Sandys, L.

Avon, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Shannon, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grey, E.

Sharples, B.

Banks, L.

Gridley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Barnby, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sligo, M.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Spens, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stamp, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Bethell, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathspey, L.

Caithness, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Swaythling, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ilchester, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Clancarty, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Teviot, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Thomas, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Tranmire, L.

Cockfield, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Daventry, V.

Molson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Davidson, V.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

Derwent, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Donegall, M.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Dudley, B.

Newall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Effingham, E.

Norfolk, D.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Winstanley, L.

Elles, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blease, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Plant, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leonard, L.

Stedman, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 38, 38A and 38B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.29 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I think it would be easier if on this Motion I dealt with the two Amendments in my name. What I think would be an ideal situation, so far as one can get it to an ideal situation, is for the words
"has reasonable cause to suspect an offence had been committed"
to be included under subsection (1) before paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). This would make the Bill more easily understood. There is the theoretical situation that, although the enforcement officer could have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed and he goes into the premises, but finds that an offence has not been committed, he could, as the Act stands, seize and detain books or open documents. This is theoretical and probably unlikely to happen but I hope that the Government will give consideration to amending the clause before the Report stage.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: I am in a slightly difficult position about this. Obviously I want the clause to remain in the Bill unamended. But I want to follow up, if I may, a point which was at the centre of what I thought was the speech of my noble friend Lord Houghton. He has a capacity that I have admired for years of being
898
able to stir things up and to get the point that he really wants to drive home brought out of the confusion that is thus created. He has done so on this occasion, and his point is that this kind of clause is unsuitable for this kind of legislation. It is a consistent clause. It appears in most of our consumer legislation, more or less in this form, and therefore, in order to get consistency, we go on putting it in Bill after Bill.
Several years ago I tried to get away from this legalistic stuff which confuses me. I tried to get this very simply stated; in other words, to say that an authorised officer has a free right of entry for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the Act and, if he is refused admittance, he can get a warrant to go in; and then to say what he can do if he has got a warrant and what he can do if he has got a free right of access. But the lawyers will not allow simplicity. I think what we need to do is to get a united front against the lawyers who will insist on writing this kind of language into a Bill. But we cannot do it on this occasion.
If I may, seeing that we are dealing with the question of whether the clause shall stand part, I should like briefly, (although he is not present) to deal with the point that was raised by Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He was dealing with the question of the rights of a citizen being infringed by all the rights of entry, search warrants and so on that we hand out under this kind of legislation to so many police officers and other kinds of officer. He is in a difficulty because I know that he believes that our trading system should be run on the basis of free and fair competition. In order to get free and fair competition you must lay down free and

899
fair trading rules. Those trading rules have to be adhered to and enforced somehow.
In the best way that we can we have put that supervision of fair trading rules into this legislation. There is an interesting development from this. The Fair-Trading Act, which was produced—although it was a non-partisan Act—by a Government of the party represented on the other Benches, contains a provision (I had a hand in getting that provision into the Act) that allows the Director of Fair Trading to give approval to voluntary codes of practice in order, if possible, to stem the tide of legislation that applies to individual trading associations. If the Director gives his approval to a code of practice, he can also take action against any trader who persistently offends against that code.
There are difficulties in supervising voluntary codes of practice to make sure that all the traders in that trade are sticking to the code of practice. Now what is happening is that trades that have worked out their own codes of practice—voluntary codes of practice—and had them approved by the Director of Fair Trading, are now asking trading standards officers freely to supervise the fair trading rules that are in their voluntary codes of practice. It will create a few difficulties, but the idea that traders do not want this kind of legislation is of course quite wrong. It depends how it is exercised. I agree with everyone who has criticised the wording of our legislation. As I have said, the reason why trade associations give their approval to it is that they know from experience that the trading standards officers will work in close co-operation with them and that they have nothing to fear so long as their trading activities are perfectly honest under the rather draconian terms of the legislation that we approved.
Lord SANDYS: I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, has said on this and on previous occasions. From this side of the Committee we agree regarding the merits of eliminating dishonest competition. This Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, reminded us, the fourteenth concerned with estate agents since 1888, has run into some of the same difficulties
900
as its predecessors. The field of consumer protection dates back to the 13th century. There are weights and measures Acts and Acts of Parliament concerned broadly with trading practices and the management of markets which date back to some of the very earliest statutes. This one concerns a rather different type of activity. Discussions that we have had have pointed this out and the Committee have rightly reached the conclusion on the Bill that we should think very carefully about it.
Lord WALLACE or COSLANY: In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the amendments he originally put down place no additional constraint on the trading standards officer. As the clause stands, before he asks to see and requires reproductions or takes copies of books and documents, he must, under subsection (1)(b) have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed under the Act. Only thereafter can he proceed to seize and detain books and documents, require the breaking open or himself break open a container to do so, and then only if he has reason to believe that they may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under the Act; that is, there must be reason to believe that proceedings will be brought and that particular books and documents are themselves required as evidence.
The Amendments that the noble Earl put forward would have been unnecessary and if they had gone through would have only confused matters by suggesting some difference between the powers of trading standards officers in so far as estate agency work was concerned and the powers under other enactments. I have already explained some of this in detail. That is my reply to the noble Earl; but, as always, if there is any particular point later that we can deal with, perhaps he will let me know and I shall find out about it for him.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Meaning of "clients' money" etc.]:
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert ("or other payment").
The noble Earl said: This is a probing Amendment and a similar one to Amendment No. 50. I understand that even if that Amendment is accepted the following points will not be covered: the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, was quoted in column 95 of Hansard for 6th March as saying:
"It is the main object of the Bill to protect stakeholders' money".
I cannot correlate that statement with these circumstances: a prospective purchaser of a house may pay an agent, as stakeholder, a sum to cover a structural survey, for example. There is also the situation between exchange of contracts and completion, when the purchaser pays an agent sufficient sums to pay the first insurance premium or alternatively the first mortgage repayment. It appears that if the agent absconds with these sums there is very little that the prospective purchaser can do about it. Ought not these situations to be covered if the Government are serious in their endeavours to protect the consumer? I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The Bill, as I have already emphasised on a number of occasions, is essentially a consumer measure which aims to protect the individual buying or selling his home. Its scope is, therefore, limited and relates to broking activities in relation to transactions involving a capital payment for a substantially residential property. The money it seeks to protect is the money the prospective purchaser pays in such transactions to another person's agent and which is dealt with by the latter rather than passed on and is in certain circumstances returnable. In the event of default, the person who paid the money has no protection. The moneys are in all cases of a type which the agent does not need to take to carry on his business. If he chooses not to do so, we shall not be faced with the need to find insurance or other cover against its loss. If there are other payments of the type which the Bill seeks to protect, can your Lordships provide instances? The essential test is that the moneys should be paid by one person to another person's agent in relation to transactions involving substantially residential property which might in certain circumstances be returnable. That is the position, and the Government certainly could not accept the Amendment put down by the noble Earl.
Lord SANDYS: I think the noble Lord did ask whether any of your Lordships could cite cases in which other payments might arise. A considerable debate did take place in another place and a later Amendment, No. 44, is going to be put to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, relating to Clause 12(5). We are very glad that the noble Lord is bringing forward Amendment No. 44, which relates to "any relevant assets". Those relevant assets will be part of the client's money which will be protected.
In response to the noble Lord's question, I think we should say that there may well be other aspects of the deposit money. It is just conceivable that there would be rents; it is conceivable that there would be a mortgage payment or something of that nature, or even an insurance policy. I believe that the Amendment put down by my noble friend has particular merit when related to Amendment No. 44 which the noble Lord is going to look at. I hope that when he comes to Amendment No. 44 he will refer to this Amendment moved previously.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I shall read the speech of the noble Lord very carefully when it is printed, and at this stage I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I might come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("residential")
Page 14, line 44, leave out ("residential")
Page 14, line 41, leave out ("subject to subsection (6) below")
Page 15, line 2, leave out ("residential").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 are consequential on an earlier Amendment which was accepted by the Committee. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("other") and insert ("any relevant").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 44, 46 and 68 were consequential on adjustments made to the definition of "residential property" in Clause 2 in another place. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to accept without prejudice Amendments consequential upon the passing of Amendment No. 1 following the defeat of the Government. In the light of this indication, it is inappropriate for me to move these Amendments, but that is not to say that we shall not be bringing forward either the same or possibly similar Amendments at a later stage. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 44, but reserve the right to being Amendments forward at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("residential").
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This, I think, is also consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Clients' money held on trust or as agent]:
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 43, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment because it is felt that it is surely quite wrong that new trustees' expenses can be paid from clients' moneys. Surely this goes against the whole principle of protecting clients' funds. Clients' accounts could quite legally be dissipated by these third party trustees. However justified it might be, I think it requires some explanation. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This Amendment, with respect to the noble
904
Lord, Lord Gisborough, is short-sighted. The words which it seeks to delete make provision for the worst possible case, namely when a banned agent is hopelessly insolvent and the only way to distribute the clients' money (which the Bill will have safeguarded) is to bring in someone else to sort out the mess. Nobody is going to do that job gratuitously. He must be paid from somewhere and it is at least better for the clients to give up a proportion of their money in the interest of getting the rest back than for them not to get any money back at all. In this respect, the clause follows the system adopted for bankruptcy, liquidation and receivership. That is the position, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SWINFEN: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me what is the position where a prospective purchaser has paid a deposit to the vendor's agent and that deposit forms part of the purchase money and is used, or part of it is used, for the expenses of the trustee before completion of the sale? The money will therefore not be available to form part of the total sum involved in the purchase. There might be a case for the vendor refusing to complete.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is what I call a sticky one!—to put it mildly. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will certainly look into this point. It needs an answer but, quite frankly, on the spur of the moment it is impossible to answer such an involved question.
Lord SWINFEN: I think the way in which the Bill is worded at the moment means that it does need looking at.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, I have agreed to that.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Keeping of client accounts]:
4.49 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 48A:
Page 17, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a client account maintained otherwise than by a company, a person approved in writing by the Secretary of State as a qualified auditor for the purposes of this subsection; or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48A, which stands in my name. If your Lordships look at Clause 14(5)(a), you will see that for the purpose of auditing accounts relating to clients' money, regulations may be made requiring—
"… such accounts to be drawn up in respect of specified accounting periods and to be audited by a qualified auditor …".
This is the point of the Amendment. Subsection (6), on page 17 of the Bill, sets out the persons who are regarded as qualified auditors. These are bodies of accountants established in the United Kingdom, which are at present recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Companies Act, and they include the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Association of Certified Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.
It is represented to me that this restriction of the qualification of auditors to the bodies that I have just enumerated could cause difficulty for some estate agents, who are private individuals or a partnership, and might lead to hardship for some accountants and auditors, who are at present acting for estate agents in this regard but fall outside the list of qualified bodies. The organisation which has represented to me that some safeguard might be introduced into this clause is the Association of International Accountants. I am advised that some of its members already act for estate agents who are private individuals or partnerships in regard to the preparation of accounts for income tax purposes. They are accepted by the Inland Revenue. At the present time no audit is required, so no question of their capacity as auditors arises. But under the terms of this clause, accountants who now may act for sonic estate agents would be barred from acting as auditors, because they are not within the bodies recognised by the Secretary of State as being qualified.
This is a problem which inevitably arises when transition is taking place
906
from one set of conditions to a new set of conditions. The present set of conditions does not require any audit of the accounts of estate agents. Very properly, the new conditions require estate agents to keep a client account, and the Bill provides for the auditing of the client account which the law requires estate agents to keep. I understand that this is on all fours with the statutory provision for a client account which must be kept by solicitors. This means, therefore, that in some cases either the estate agent concerned must dismiss his present accountants, because they could not be qualified to act as auditors, or he must engage auditors within the list of qualifications, in addition to employing the accountants whom he has hitherto employed, and who have given satisfaction both to him and to the Inland Revenue. So that this Amendment is an attempt to provide some safeguard against conditions of hardship or overlapping of function, which might otherwise arise.
Your Lordships will see that the Amendment provides:
"in the case of a client account maintained otherwise than by a company, a person approved in writing by the Secretary of State as a qualified auditor for the purposes of this subsection".
This, admittedly, puts upon the Secretary of State a responsibility for giving a certificate of qualification for the purposes of this clause—and this clause only—in cases where he thinks that he would be justified in so doing. I hope that it is not too cumbersome a way of making some provision for the problems of transition. But when switching from one to the other, unless we are to be quite inflexible about it, some easement is justified for the time being—and it will be only for the time being—while the provisions of the new Act are settling down. In future, in engaging their accountants and auditors, estate agents will clearly comply with the requirements of the Act, but those who have an existing service which is to their satisfaction will be enabled to continue with it, if the Secretary of State approves in writing that an accountant may carry on performing the function that he has already discharged for the person or partnership concerned.
So I submit this Amendment for the favourable consideration of my noble friend, in the hope that it will meet with his approval. I do not know how many cases there might be. But I do not think

907
that to put this small amount of discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State would be in conflict with the general intentions of the Bill, and in the cases concerned would not give rise to any possible cause of dissatisfaction. I beg to move.
4.57 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I can understand the concern that underlies the spirit of the Amendment moved by my noble friend. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be resisted. In my view, it would undermine the Government's general policy of maintaining a uniformity of audit requirements and standards for all statutory audits, and of ensuring that the undertaking of such audits shall be confined in all cases to persons who are qualified to audit company accounts as prescribed in the Companies Act. That is the motivation behind Clause 14, which extends this policy to the area of statutory audits of unlimited companies, partnerships and sole traders, and follows the precedent of the Insurance Brokers Registration Act.
The corollary of the maintenance of high standards—standards which, I emphasise, are maintained solely for the protection of the consumer—may mean that certain persons who are at present undertaking non-statutory accountancy functions for those estate agents who are partnerships or sole traders will lose some work. This would arise when such estate agents wished the same accountant to carry out the newly required audit, as well as to handle their bookkeeping. That is, of course, a risk, but it can apply even in normal circumstances when an unincorporated clerk becomes incorporated, and therefore subject to Companies Act requirements, but only when no member of the accountancy practice concerned is properly qualified. So long as someone in the practice is qualified, he can be appointed to carry out the audit functions.
The objective of the Bill is to ensure high professional standards in an area of business activity which has, hitherto, not been free from examples of malpractice by the unscrupulous minority of rogue estate agents and where members of the public have been seriously prejudiced. Since some estate agents hold considerable
908
sums of money on behalf of their clients, is it not axiomatic that high standards of auditing should therefore be necessary? I believe that the Government's policy must be sustained. It must not be diluted. The Amendment would offer unqualified accountants a lever to obtain recognition for statutory audits by a backdoor method, and would be but a first step in undermining the policy. For these reasons, with the greatest respect to my noble friend,I urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am very disappointed by my noble friend's reply. Bernard Shaw said that all professional bodies are a conspiracy against society. There is a good deal of truth in what he said. I have sought in my Amendment to give temporary protection to those who are not part of the monopolistic professional bodies which are listed as qualified within the meaning of the Companies' Act. To have spoken and voted against the Government once in an afternoon will do me for the time being. Therefore I shall take fresh advice on the matter for a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, with reluctance and with an element of defiance in my voice, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wonder whether I may ask a question regarding Clause 14(6)(d). This refers to the qualifications of Scottish auditors. Clause 12 sets out the definition of clients' money held by estate agents. This means deposits, and these are dealt with in Clause 14. I understood that Scottish estate agents cannot hold deposits under Scottish law. I have been advised that deposits automatically go to lawyers, not to estate agents. Therefore I am wondering why there should be a paragraph in Clause 14(6)(b) which deals specifically with the qualifications of auditors in Scotland.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: In Scotland, it is common practice for estate agency work to be carried out by solicitors. May I obtain the required

909
information for the noble Earl and send it to him as soon as possible? I am afraid that I cannot give it to him immediately.
Lord GISBOROUGH: There is one point relating to the accounts regulations which I should like to raise. Estate agents should know where they stand and should not be subject to subsequent orders which might come out from time to time. All the regulations called for by the Bill should be introduced on a specified date, in one go, otherwise estate agents will have to spend much of their working time keeping their ears to the ground and hoping that they do not miss the publication of any of the regulations. Surely the Government must know what they have in mind. Therefore, draft regulations ought to be available. It would be a great comfort to the professional bodies if by the Report stage, or as early as possible, they could have some indication of what are the draft regulations.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: It is not possible for me to give the draft regulations at this stage, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, would expect me to do so. At a later stage we might be able to give the noble Lord some information, but to do so at the moment is out of the question. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Interest on clients' money]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Failure of any person to comply with any provision of accounts regulations made by virtue of this section may be taken into account by the Director in accordance with section 3(1)(c) above and may form the basis of a civil claim for interest which was or should have been earned on clients' money but shall not render that person liable to any criminal penalty.").
The noble Lord said: This is largely a technical Amendment. The private Member's Bill on which this Bill is based would have imposed a criminal sanction for breach of the interest requirements. This sanction was removed but it was not clear that the criminal penalty for breach of accounts regulations imposed by
910
Clause 14(8) did not extend to breach of regulations made by virtue of Clause 15. The Government's view is that breach of any obligation introduced by virtue of this clause to account for interest earned on clients' money was not sufficiently serious to attract a criminal penalty. The Amendment removes the doubt on this score and also makes it clear that the client who does not receive any interest due has a right of recourse against the agent at civil law. A breach of the requirements is, I need hardly remind your Lordships, a trigger event which could lead the Director to look at the offending agent's fitness to practise. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: I rise to mention only that the wording of the last line of the Amendment seems to be a little unusual. It says, "but shall not render that person liable to any criminal penalty". I should have thought that the conventional language was, "but shall not render that person guilty of any offence". It is only a drafting point.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: All I can say at the moment is that the point is taken and noted.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: In Clause 15(1) there is a reference to "any clients' money". I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the need for a de minimis provision—a starting point from which the accounting procedure can begin.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I have noted the point and will deal with it at a later stage.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Insurance cover for clients' money]:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 18, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("authorised") in line 25 and insert ("carrying out estate agency work must be covered by").
The noble Earl said: We come now to what in my view is one of the most important clauses and, indeed, one of the bulwarks of the Bill. It deals with

911
protection for those who have submitted deposits and who then find that the agent has absconded. Every Member of this Committee will recall that over the last five or 10 years there have been a number of very sad cases perhaps of young couples going to purchase a house, with great excitement laying down a 10 per cent. deposit and then finding, to their sadness, that the agent has absconded and that there is absolutely no redress. Everybody welcomes the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 16. However, the main problem with Clause 16 as it is now drafted is that it covers only a certain section of estate agents.
The Government believe it to be wise that insurance cover protection should be mandatory only when an agent insists upon receiving a deposit from a would-be purchaser. They believe that if the agent does not insist upon receiving a deposit there is no reason to insist upon an insurance policy. That, in a sense, seems to be fair. Certainly it seems to be fair to an agent, but is it really fair to the purchaser?
I think that the case was argued in another place on two occasions: there was doubt whether a purchaser—perhaps a first time buyer—would be able to distinguish between those agents who are and those agents who are not bonded. The matter was discussed at some length during the Committee stage in another place and the Minister agreed to look at it again. The Minister did indeed look at the matter again and he introduced what he felt would be further protection. The first protection which was included during the Committee stage was that the agent would have to display somewhere in his office a certificate of insurance which would indicate to a member of the public that he was bonded. As Members of another place pointed out, this is hardly a security, because very few people would see the certificate, or realise that there was one, and therefore might not ask the agent about it.
The Minister then introduced into the Bill at Third Reading the provision that an agent would not only have to display in his office his certificate of insurance but would also have to state on his notepaper that he was a bonded agent. It was at this stage that the Government decided
912
that they had gone far enough. I think members of the estate agency profession still generally feel that this provision does not give sufficient protection to the public, and it is very little help for a member of the public not to spot that the agency is not bonded and then to find that he has lost his deposit and to be told, "Oh, don't worry. Next time it will not happen because that agent will be struck off". That is of very little assistance to the person whom we are trying to protect under this Bill.
The argument of the Government to date—and I have seen letters which the Minister has written to various bodies—comes down to two things: first, that bonding for all agents, and particularly for those who did not seek deposits, will be punitive; and if that is the reply this evening I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some idea of how punitive it will be, because I suggest that it will not be punitive. Secondly, there would be resistance from some agents on religious grounds against insurance. I see the noble Lord is nodding his head. I have spoken to a number of solicitors and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will be able to enlighten the Committee but I have never come across a case where an agent refused to insure on religious grounds. If I may say so, it seems un-businesslike and hardly conducive to the protection of his clients.
Lord JANNER: I am sorry, I do not know of any cases, but of course I would not be sure that my knowledge of this matter is as perfect as it should be.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that support. The Amendment simply seeks that all agents should be bonded. It is as simple as that. I would suggest to the noble Lord that if he stills feels that this is not acceptable at this stage he might look at the law on the point that I raised with the noble Lord a moment ago, that is operative in Scotland. I understand that estate agents in Scotland are forbidden by law to accept deposits pre-contract. Rather than having these provisions for insurance and bonding, how simple it would be if we simply followed the Scottish law and prevented estate agents from taking part in what is, after all, an act of faith in accepting a deposit before the exchange of contracts. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to support the Amendment because as my noble friend, Lord Kinnoull, said, it lies in the heartland of the Bill. Unhappily we do not and cannot operate estate agency business in England and Wales—and for that matter in Northern Ireland—on the same basis as it operates in Scotland, partly because of past practice, partly because of the legal system and partly because of custom. With that in mind there is an absolutely inescapable argument that we should make provision in Clause 16 for the Amendment which my noble friend has so rightly adduced.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to support this Amendment. One has the picture of the average man who buys a new house every seven years, and while he is busy looking for a house as well as working, he is probably not aware whether or not the agent is bonded and it is a bit late when the agent runs off and the man discovers that, while he has lost his deposit, the agent will not be allowed to act again.
To take another case, what happens where a house is being sold by an un-bonded agent? There is no option for the purchaser to go elsewhere; he has to deal with that agent because he is the only one with the house on his books. If he is un-bonded, perhaps if a deposit is demanded it may not be noticed that he is an un-bonded agent. The remedy is to amend Clause 16 to require all estate agents to be bonded, and not only those seeking, or purporting to seek, deposit payment. Mandatory bonding for all must be introduced within a prescribed period and the Bill should so provide.
5.15 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This is a key Amendment and I should like to bring my comments to bear also on Amendment No. 52 because it is virtually related to this Amendment. First, I should like to say that I cannot deny that in the absence of a requirement for cover for all who carry on estate agency work as defined in the Bill, there is some risk of rogue agents taking and making away with clients' money. However, strong objections in principle to a universal requirement for bonding—I use the term as shorthand—outweigh the risk which, given the controls of the Bill, should be
914
both limited and shortlived. It must be remembered that the custom of taking deposits is by no means universal among estate agents and I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the unfairness of placing a requirement for cover—indeed, in effect, of taxing—those who do not take deposits. Such a requirement would have the further effect of driving from business the honest and efficient agent who, for instance, has religious objections to taking out insurance. Here I can say most definitely that there are quite a number of estate agents who on religious grounds do not agree with this. I have had representations, and no doubt other noble Lords will have had such representations, and we are very anxious indeed that people with genuine religious objections should have those religious objections respected.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not at all an expert on religious objections, but I cannot myself see how having to take out cover if you do not yourself take deposits could be any great hardship, because the cover would surely be nil. There would be nothing to cover.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: If an estate agent wants to take out general cover there will be expenses but I will deal with that later on, because I want to give something approaching a detailed statement at the end of my present remarks.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Can the noble Lord say whether this is general throughout all religions or whether it is a specific creed which causes people to believe that they should not do this?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Without notice I would hesitate to go into detail, but I should imagine that it is one creed. I have had representations and I have had to write back and give my own views. I do not know whether other noble Lords have received them. It might surprise some people but there are some estate agents who do not believe in this practice on religious grounds. I do not agree with it but everybody has a right to his own religious belief.
The clause as it stands makes it possible for him and for agents who might find the cost of insurance rendered them un-

915
competitive not to take cover but to carry on business without taking deposits. It thus avoids the creation of a closed shop with its resultant disadvantages to the public in limiting competition. The memorandum issued to certain of your Lordships by the Consumer Association highlights this very point in emphasising the importance they attach to consumer choice and is concerned about the additional costs which will be placed on the consumer if those agents who do not take deposits have to meet the additional expense of insurance—an expense which will inevitably be greater for the unattached agent seeking cover for the first time than for the currently established group schemes. In other words, if it is laid down in the Act that there must be cover then they will have to take cover under the Amendment.
The safeguards of the Bill for the depositor are twofold. First, Clause 16(3) enables my right honourable friend to require those who call themselves estate agents to display in their places of business and on their business documents information which will enable consumers to check whether an estate agent is bonded or not before placing a deposit. Secondly, the risk those who take deposits without cover run of being banned from business and the fact that to do so will be a criminal offence should mean that any loophole is shortlived. The issue of one or two banning orders, I submit, will have an inevitable salutary effect on potential rogues. In any case, the Amendment would not close any theoretical loophole there may be. The rogue agent who is prepared to take the risk of being banned and of committing a criminal offence by taking deposits without cover is scarcely going to be deflected from his intention by making it a criminal offence for others not to be covered when they do not take deposits. I ask, is it not an invasion of the liberty of the subject to require an honest and reputable agent who for good reason does not take deposits—and it is in no way an essential part of the business—to obtain cover for something he does not do?
In relation to the second Amendment, No. 52, it might be helpful if I give some explanation of the reasons for the inclusion of Clause 16(2). My right honourable friend's power to except persons and
916
classes of person from the requirement for cover is provided to deal with groups of persons, whether named as a class or listed separately, who are already covered by legislation which is deemed to give adequate protection to the consumer; example might be building societies, banks or life offices. The omission of the power would do nothing to help the consumer.
I think it would be helpful at this stage that I make some statement on insurance or other cover for clients' money. Clause 16 of the Bill requires anyone who takes deposits to be covered by authorised arrangements to protect depositors against loss of the money. Although it is in no way essential to the carrying on of estate agency work for deposits to be taken, it might be argued that the Government should not impose such a requirement without ensuring that suitable arrangements were available for any agent who wanted them. To this end a number of meetings have been held with the insurance industry, from which the following has emerged: (a) the existing indemnity schemes of the main national organisations of estate agents could be expected to continue unaffected; (b) the insurers would favour and would in principle be prepared to cover group schemes on a national or at a local level. It is for those concerned to join together to form such schemes. Then (c) for those unable or unwilling to join such schemes the insurance companies would in principle be willing to issue individual bonds. It is possible that bonds would require to be issued to a named third party.
The Government have it in mind to bring in an Amendment on Report so that the regulations can provide the maximum flexibility and in a way which would oust the general law of contract along the lines of the statutory provisions relating to administration guarantees. (d) As a very rough estimate, the cost of obtaining cover per annum would be £150 per practitioner for £25,000, with a minimum insured of £50,000, and a minimum annual premium of £300. (e) The insurers would not be happy with a requirement for universal bonding—and I use the term in shorthand—whether deposits are taken or not, as has been proposed by some. In particular, they feel it would impose upon them the intolerable burden of deciding whether or not a man was allowed to pursue his

917
livelihood. The Government have every sympathy with the insurers on this matter, and it is one among various reasons why the Government remain resolutely opposed to a requirement for universal bonding.
The Government believe that the understandings outlined above should ensure that arrangements are available for those who feel they need to take deposits. In any case, it is worth repeating that it is not an essential part of estate agency work to take or hold deposits, and nothing in what the Government propose will, therefore, deprive a person unable to obtain cover of his livelihood. That is the position, and therefore, generally speaking, I must reject the Amendment and support Clause 16 as it stands.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I am sure we will all read what the noble Lord has said, and particularly that statement on how it affects what we are trying to achieve by this Amendment. I am not sure that it does cover the point that my noble friend was making, and I am still concerned about the possibility of a rogue agent going away with a deposit. He might in the normal course of his business not accept deposits, and by trading as an estate agent he might not be buying and selling houses that frequently. When he suddenly is offered the job of selling a substantial house and takes a deposit, he might be tempted to go away with it at that stage. That is the situation we are trying to cover. I am not sure that what the noble Lord has said does cover that situation. Therefore, I feel it is a very necessary, to clear up any misunderstanding at this stage and to make the Bill more workable when it is passed, that the clause is extended by the Amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: With due respect to the noble Earl, the Committee, in its wisdom or otherwise, has passed an Amendment which will reduce the opportunities of dealing with such a rogue agent.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this discussion. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for his very full statement on this point. I do not
918
think it would be right to press this Amendment tonight. I should like to examine carefully what he has said. I would put three points to which we might return at a later stage. In Clause 16(2)(a), which gives the exceptions under this Bill, those agents who would not need to be bonded, the noble Lord mentioned building societies and banks. I noticed that this was given as a reason in another place. I should like to ask, when is a bank or a building society really operative as an estate agent? When a building society takes action to sell a house usually it is for the very sad reason that they have had to take possession, and they come under the most stringent rules of trusteeship. They certainly do not act on their own account as an estate agent, They usually take two or three opinions from estate agents and seek to get the best price through an estate agent. I think it is wrong and misleading to suggest that a building society or a bank would be excluded, because I do not think they would ever come under this clause.
The second point concerns the religious reasons. If there really is a case for religious exemption, then of course it could be written into the Bill. Having practised myself for about 25 years, I have never heard of this sort of case. I accept what the noble Lord says, but I have never heard of such a case. Even so, this could be exempted under the Bill; this could be a reason for exemption.
I think my noble friend Lord Caithness really summarised our arguments. We are seeking to cover the rogue agent who will have absconded criminally with depositors' money. We have, sadly, read of that very case on two or three occasions in the last five years, very painful examples of this abuse that we are trying to prevent. I would hope to look at this again and perhaps see the noble Lord before the next stage to discuss it. I hope he will be prepared to do that, to see whether we can compromise in some way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This matter has been substantially dealt with and therefore I shall not move the Amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("residential").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("residential").
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of this section "authorised arrangements" may include payments by an estate agent to an authorised insurance company and payments to an organisation operating an approved compensation scheme.
(7) "An approved compensation scheme" for the purposes of section 16(6) is one approved by the Secretary of State by regulation under section 16(2), for the purpose of compensating a person entitled to any clients' money in the event of an authorised insurance policy, in relation to clients' money, no having been taken out or being invalid for any reason.")
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the addition of two new subsections to Clause 16 is to extend the consumer protection a stage further. One of the main aims of the Bill is to prevent estate agents from absconding with prospective purchasers' deposits, through a system of compulsory insurance or bonding. The Bill, however, does not cover the situation and the problems that will arise if the insurance is not taken out or renewed, or is invalid on the grounds of non-disclosure by the agent to the insurance company. For full protection a back-up fund is needed and there are already such schemes in existence. The RICS and ISVA run a joint indemnity scheme and its purpose—and I quote from their document is as follows:
"The scheme provides for any member of the public to be reimbursed his direct pecuniary loss arising from the fraud or dishonesty of, or misappropriation by, any member of either of the two societies and/or of any principal or employee of any qualified firm in respect of deposits held by such member or qualified firm, whilst acting in the capacity of estate agents in the British Isles".
920
The scheme automatically covers every member of either of the societies. It has to date been restricted to loss of deposits on purchasing, acquiring or leasing real property up to a certain figure. But I understand that the ISVA has extended its part of the scheme to cover all aspects of estate agency work. Solicitors operate a similar scheme under the control of the Law Society and provision is made for it in Sections 36 and 37 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Solicitors Act 1974. It is a natural extension of the Bill to include these Amendments and I hope that the Government will see fit to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support the Amendment. My noble friend has cited solicitors as a parallel case and I think that one should also perhaps cite travel agents. One has seen in the past most unfortunate situations which have arisen in which a case has come about when clients' deposits, as regards a travel package, have been made away with. I believe that this device, which is really a fail-safe technique, should produce a satisfactory result. It relates to a situation when an insurance policy falls out of date possibly for no particular failure on the part of anyone except the firm concerned. I think that it is a device which we should welcome.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The Amendment has the laudable aim of seeking to ensure that a depositor can be sure that his money will be returned to him in full in all circumstances. That. I believe, is the general purpose. The possibility is one that has been considered with care, but such funds are difficult and costly as regards administration and would involve a levy on estate agents, the cost of which would inevitably be passed forward to the consumer. As noble Lords will remember, the memorandum from the Consumers Association, which some of your Lordships received, was concerned to maintain consumer choice and the availability of services which did not include any additional expense for insurance. In the Government's view the cost of administering such a fund would be out of proportion to the mischief involved. The circumstances in which there is likely to be a shortfall in clients' money would inevitably be limited. The arrangements now envisaged

921
for cover, as outlined in the statement that I have just made, will mean that the question of policies becoming invalid because of non-disclosure will not arise. Other failures, for instance, to renew or take out cover, will be short-lived; the issue of a few banning orders should see to that.
The provisions of Clause 16(4) mean that the public will have ample guidance as to where they can safely place a deposit. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the subsection requires those who call themselves estate agents and who carry on estates broking, to display information, to be specified by regulation, about their cover—whether they take deposits and so on. The creation of a compensation fund would not only require the trustworthy agent to shoulder part of the burden of the careless or rogue agent, but would, as in the case of the proposal for universal bonding, drive from business the honest and efficient agent who had religious objections to taking out any form of cover and to participating in any association, and as I have already indicated, such people do exist. It would lead to the creation of a closed-shop and the limitation of competition to the public disadvantage.
The Amendments imply that the compensation fund will apply to a class of persons; namely, estate agents. The Bill controls an activity and not a profession for the very reason that estate broking is carried out not only by those who call themselves estate agents. The organisation of a compensation fund would raise issues of definition which might prove insuperable. For all those reasons, and appreciating the points made, I would strongly urge your Lordships to reject these Amendments.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. In view of the statement that he has made it seems that part of what we were trying to achieve by these Amendments will be covered in any case. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [information to clients of prospective liabilities.]:
5.38 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert ("for carrying out estate agency work").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 are all covered by the comments which I made earlier. They clarify a doubt about the coverage of the clause and ensure that its requirements apply only to remuneration for estate agency work and other payments under the same contract. As drafted the clause would have been taken to cover remuneration for other matters. That is the situation. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I rise purely on a matter of drafting and terminology to ask the Government whether
"carrying out estate agency work"
is consistent with the Bill. If the noble Lord would care to look at Clause 6 I think he will find that it says:
"carry on … estate agency work".
This is really a question of language and consistency throughout the Bill.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is a point that I shall certainly take into account and we shall probably deal with it at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments No. 57 to 62:
Page 21, line 11, after ("remuneration") insert ("for carrying out estate agency work")
Page 21, line 15, after ("remuneration") insert ("for carrying out estate agency work")
Page 21, line 16, after ("which") insert ("under the contract referred to in subsection (1) above")
Page 21, line 28, after ("varied") insert ("so far as they relate to the carrying out of estate agency work or any payment falling within subsection (3)(c) above")
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("additional information")

923
Page 21, line 34, after ("above") insert ("additional information relating to any estate agency work to be performed under the contract").
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Regulation of pre-contract deposits outside Scotland]:
Lord SWINFEN Lord SWINFEN moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 23, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment to discover what sort of regulations the Government envisage. The other evening, when the Committee was discussing the Bill, it was obvious that at that stage the Government had given no great consideration to the various regulations that are to be made under the Bill. A pre-contract deposit is an exceedingly useful tool for the estate agent, bearing in mind that he is the agent of the vendor. It is not unusual for a purchaser to change his mind and decide not to continue with a purchase. Where there is no pre-contract deposit, the purchaser does not always take the trouble to advise the estate agent of his change of mind. Where there is a pre-contract deposit, he wants his money back and he wants it back fast. Therefore, he will advise the agent, who has the opportunity, immediately, of looking for another purchaser and, therefore, assisting his client. Can the Minister give me any indication of the regulations that are likely to be made? I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: To be brief, my right honourable friend has no immediate intention of using the power conferred on him by this clause. He is conscious that an imposed maximum would soon become the norm, and he is not aware of any widespread abuses. However, if the abuses did become widespread, his aim would be to set the level so that whatever was then reasonable and acceptable was unaffected and only the abuses were caught.
The clause relates only to pre-contract deposits, at present commonly of the order of £100 to £200, although I have heard of cases where as much as £1,000 was sought. The power is taken as a safeguard against the possibility of a
924
trend towards the taking of excessively high pre-contract deposits, which might mean that amounts at any one time exceeded the limit of authorised cover during the term of a bond. That is the position. As the noble Lord said, this is a probing Amendment. If there is any further point, I shall try to answer him now; if not, I shall make further inquiries.
Lord SWINFEN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which has been most informative. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transactions in which an estate agent has a personal interest]:
5.43 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 67:
Page 24, line 12, leave out ("residential")
Page 24, line 18, leave out ("residential")
Page 24, line 30, leave out ("residential")
Page 24, line 32, leave out ("residential")
Page 24, line 35, leave out ("residential").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 63 to 67 en bloc. They are identical and consequential.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 24, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to "residential property" includes a reference to the stock-in-trade, goodwill and other assets of a business carried on in any part of the property.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Standards of competence]:
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 69:

925
Page 25, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, not later than two years from the passing of this act,").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 69 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73. This is a very important Amendment. Consumer protection will not be achieved unless minimum standards of competence are introduced. Greater loss than the loss of a deposit can be and is suffered consequent upon bad advice from an incompetent agent. A gross over- or under-estimate of the selling price through lack of knowledge, experience or, indeed, deliberate malpractice is illustrative of this fact. The remedy is to require rather than to permit the Secretary of State to define minimum standards of competence within a prescribed period. This represents the minimum requirement for the Bill to achieve its object as a consumer protection measure. Without this Amendment in the area where the public are at greatest risk, the Bill means nothing. It is a very important Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Clause 22 is the result of some considerable thought on the part of the Government, and is an attempt to balance the conflicting aims of protecting the public from incompetents and preserving free entry to the profession. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has given Notice of his intention to move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill and when we come to that debate I hope to explain in more detail why the clause is as it is.
However, at this stage I should say that the Government are not wedded to the idea of imposing standards of competence at all. Rather, we would rely on the other controls in the Bill to keep out incompetents than create a closed shop which would restrict entry to the profession. That is exactly what these Amendments tend towards. If I may be blunt, I suspect that some of them are initiated more by a desire to produce a monopoly—and perhaps a profitable one—than to protect the consumer. This Bill is about buying and selling domestic property. It is not about surveying, valuation or any other of the specialist skills in the property world.
926
The Government are strongly of the view that the standard of competence required should be no higher than that needed for the activity of buying and selling domestic property. The case for controls on other skills has not yet been made out, but if it had been or is in future made out, this Bill is not the place to introduce them. Furthermore—and here I turn to the detail of the Amendments—the Government see no reason to impose any standards unless and until the need for them is apparent. Is it not more in accordance with the tenets of the party opposite to work through proscription of what is undesirable than through unnecessary imposition of mandatory controls? These Amendments will require standards to be imposed within two years. The noble Lord has spoken of the need for them to be high standards. I am entirely unconvinced. It sounds to me like special pleading on the part of an interested party.
I hope that the Committee will reject these Amendments, and urge your Lordships to do so. But at the very least, I hope we can agree that it would be better to have no standards—coupled with fully adequate controls on the rogues—than to restrict free competition. If your Lordships are not enamoured of this clause, I suggest that we omit it rather than adopt the Amendments. If, however, the clause is to stand, it would be constitutionally indefensible to lay a duty on my right honourable friend to make regulations introducing minimum standards of competence, as a decision in the matter lies with a future Parliament.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not know whether the noble Lord has covered what he sought to cover as regards my Amendment, or whether he would like a general debate on Clause 22. My Motion to leave out Clause 22 is really more a probing one for general discussion than an actual intention to leave out the clause. Being an agent, I can assure the Committee that this is a very delicate area in the Bill, but it is a very important one and should be included. If the Government can get the regulations right, I am sure the Government are right to rely, on the one hand, on those qualified bodies to exert a standard of competence by examination and, on the other hand, to set up a body to determine whether or

927
not someone has sufficient experience to operate and to purport to be an estate agent. I am sure that that is correct. However, my noble friend is concerned—and it is a very genuine concern on behalf of many people—about those agents who are not qualified but are practising at the moment, albeit for a short time. They are concerned that when the regulations are brought in there is no danger at all of their being—I will not say struck off, that would be too strong, but of their not succeeding in the examination of this new body to look into whether they are competent. I hope that the noble Lord can give some assurance tonight on that issue.
I would also hope that he could give tonight a little more information on these regulations. I think there was an undertaking in another place that the regulations would be drawn up after consultation, and that I am sure is welcome and accepted. But it was a little disturbing to read in the proceedings of another place that the regulations were not even a twinkle in the eye of the Parliamentary draftsman or the Department, and that nothing had been put to paper. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but when one is talking of producing a blanket competence clause, as in this Bill, affecting many people in this business, and particularly those coming into the business, I do not think that it is right that the Government should almost take credit for saying they have not anything to guide both Houses on the form of the regulations. I accept that this is a delicate area and would feel myself, as the noble Lord expressed, that it needs to be done with great care and attention.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I think that my noble friends have put the point. It concerns we who are practising agents that the standards of competence are maintained. If one sees a clause such as this one would like to know when these regulations are going to be produced and if they are going to be produced, and what standards we have to go to. I am not against a closed shop in estate agency. It is such a highly complicated matter now that certain examinations should be passed before one can practise it. After all, in these inflationary times, one is dealing
928
with large sums of money. Besides the other aspects of our work such as valuations, surveys, et cetera, the actual buying and selling of a house is an extremely skilled job. It would be beneficial to the public in this particular instance if there was a known standard of competence that an agent had to achieve before he could practice.
Lord SWINFEN: I believe I am right in thinking that the other night when the Committee discussed the Bill we widened the power of the Bill and did not limit it solely to residential property. There are certain areas of the country where there is continuing change of use from one form to another in property due to altering social patterns and social requirements. It is exceedingly important that an estate agent should have the knowledge and skill to understand what is going on, to advise his client correctly on the best way in which to deal with his property, and what the property should be sold as, and whether or not he needs to get any permissions or consent for change of use before handling the property.
At the moment, if he has the money, a young man straight out of school can open an estate agent's business with no skills or qualifications whatsoever. Such a person could lose a client many thousands of pounds by poor advice. I must support my noble friends' Amendment on this point because it is essential that minimum standards are set for estate agents.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We are virtually on a debate on clause stand part. In the interests of improving standards of performance, should this seem desirable, this clause enables the Secretary of State to impose minimum standards of competence on those engaged in estate agency work. The regulations must recognise practical experience and may additionally recognise professional or academic qualifications as evidence of competence. There is no national qualification in estate agency work. Members of two or three main national estate agents' bodies are employed separately to carry out structural surveys and valuation of dwellings other than assessment of market price, and are required to prove competence in these and other technical matters which is not needed to carry out the commercial activity of estate agency

929
work within the scope of the Rill where surveys are limited to measuring up and describing the number of rooms, et cetera, in a property, and valuation relates to market values in the given area at a given time.
The expertise necessary for the valuation of business assets for a transaction of the type at Clause 2(2)(d), for example where the dwelling is let at a rack rent and the assets are sold for a capital sum, is probably rather greater. With the possible exception of this case, to insist on technical expertise and professional or academic qualifications for all persons engaged in estate agency work would unnecessarily limit entry to the occupation and restrict competition to the public disadvantage.
The position of estate agents already in practice who have no academic or professional qualifications but are giving the public a competent and satisfactory service. as well as that of future trainees on the job, is protected by the requirement to recognise competence by reference to experience as an alternative to formal qualifications. The Secretary of State may designate or constitute bodies to establish and implement the provisions.
The way in which these powers might be used is not at present clear. But if academic standards were laid down they might, for instance, relate to the ability to keep hooks, to understanding the accounting regulations and other provisions of the Bill in the normal case, with possibly more significant requirements for those dealing in transactions caught by Clause 2(2)(d). The aim would be to arrive at a minimum standard if this seems advisable to protect the public, while recognising the acceptability of higher standards. Before any regulations were made there would be wide consultations required by Clause 30, and by wide consultations that would be with all the professional bodies and any other body related to estate agency work in any way.
This is the general position, and it is therefore necessary to have a standard of competence but not necessary to make it rigid and confined to one particular set of standards only. But there must be a wide-ranging series of standards acceptable and operable for all estate agents whether they are professionally qualified (shall we put it that way?) in the sense of academic qualifications, or not.
The Earl of KINNOULL: From that second answer that the Minister has given I have got the impression that the Government have no intention of bringing this regulation in for many years. I do not know whether I misunderstood, but I think the noble Lord said, "if these regulations are required." I do not know whether that really is the intention of the Government. Obviously they can hide behind wide-ranging consultations for may years. I think the Minister ought to give an indication for which I asked, that those practising at the present time without qualifications, but who would come into the remit of this new body under this clause, could possibly lose their businesses on the grounds of incompetence due to a lack of experience. I think particularly not necessarily of those who have practised for many years and have an established record, but of those just coming in who have set up an office and gone to a lot of cost and at the moment would have no surety that they could continue in business.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I would say that anybody in business now establishing a reputation has no need to be concerned. I would say that as an on the spot remark, but it seems so obvious to me. We can get a firmer assurance in due course, but my view is that anyone in business at the present time who is honourable and straightforward in their dealings, and competent within the reasonable demands of their work, should have nothing to worry about.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance so far as it goes, but if he will not accept the Amendment and write into the Bill that within two years the Government will introduce a standard of competence, may I ask him to say after what period such a regulation will be introduced? It could take five or 10 years, according to what he said, and that is unsatisfactory. This is an important part of the Bill and I hope the Minister can say a little more about what is happening about it in his Department.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: We think two years is too short a time. This is not a light-hearted matter that can be passed over quickly, but a very serious subject about which there must be extensive

931
consultation and, of course, agreement. After all, one must have a standard which is acceptable to everyone for the benefit of the profession, and therefore the Government must go carefully over this. I cannot say exactly when they will introduce it—and, as for this Government, who knows?
Lord GISBOROUGH: I do not think it is fair to say there is any intention of creating a monopoly here and it is certainly not a question of protecting the professional bodies. Far from it; they are thinking in terms of the consumers, so and we are talking about the bad eggs. The word "may" could mean "never" and I do not see why it should be so difficult to produce examinations and so on which could be up to the same standard as those of the professional bodies. Indeed, they could even be prepared by the professional bodies. There is also the problem of new entrants into the profession who, if they are not joining a professional body, will not have to pass any exams and will have no experience, so I do not know how they will cope. The problem is that for people operating without experience and without having passed exams and so on, if things go wrong it is they who get the whole of the profession a bad name. I shall consider the matter further between now and Report; in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 25, line 6, after ("may") insert ("after consultations with all established bodies representative of the estate agency profession").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Before the noble Lord explains the purpose of the Amendment, perhaps I should point out, coming before your Lordships in sackcloth and ashes, that I should not have moved Amendment No. 68. It was a mistake on my part; I glanced quickly at the documents and thought I saw No. 68, but I did not, which means I shall probably have to visit the optician. I cannot see how we can put this right now and we shall probably have to put it right on
932
Report. It is rather sad that at a point in the Bill when we are dealing with competency I must rise to make an apology of this kind.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Amendment No. 70 has been partially dealt with. I think it is accepted that the Government's intention is that the importance of practical experience as an equivalent to theoretical qualification should be recognised, and important assurances have been given. However, I think it would be possible further to strengthen the clause to ensure that this philosophy is binding as far as possible on future Administrations. The professions are worried on this count, as was mentioned in the debate on the previous Amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I have already covered this point and cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Bankrupts not to engage in estate agency work]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: Very little discussion took place in another place on this clause and in fact it was not discussed at all there in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to it on Second Reading when he said:
"I do not think that anyone would disagree that it is undesirable that such persons should be in a position to receive any money from the public".
This is a clause dealing with the undischarged bankrupt and it places a prohibition preventing an undischarged bankrupt from practising as an estate agent. While wholly agreeing with what Lord Wallace said on this matter, we have had among our communications one, and I think only one, from the National Federation of Consumer Groups making this statement:

933
"Clause 23 is superfluous. It is clearly an offence for a bankrupt to trade on his own account. There are substantial defects in the laws of bankruptcy and liquidation, but they should not be remedied in the Bill".
We are here dealing with individuals as bankrupts and not of course as companies; companies are dealt with under the Companies Act 1948 and other legislation. Why the Government feel it necessary to include bankrupts in this Bill specifically when the bankruptcy Acts in their judgment are insufficient to deal with the case I do not know. It would be interesting to have any comments Lord Wallace might have to make on the subject, and I feel we should be given more information as to why this clause is in the Bill.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: This clause provides that undischarged bankrupts are not to engage in estate agency work except as employees of another person. In particular, it is not considered desirable that such persons should be in a position to receive money from the public which should be paid into a client account; that is Clause 13. Subsection (1) provides that any person adjudged bankrupt—or, in Scotland, whose estate is sequested—after the coming into force of this clause is not to engage on his own account in estate agency work. In order not to deny a bankrupt the opportunity of financial rehabilitation, he is permitted to continue in estate agency as the employee of another person who would be responsible for the maintenance of the financial safeguards.
Subsection (2) raises that prohibition when the adjudication of bankruptcy is annulled, or in Scotland where the sequestration of the estate is recalled or when the bankruptcy is discharged. Subsection (3) qualifies the saving in subsection (1) for engaging in estate agency work as an employee by prohibiting employment by a body corporate of which the bankrupt is a director or a controller as defined in Clause 31. In the absence of such a provision, a bankrupt could escape the prohibition by forming a company which would employ him. Subsection (4) makes it an offence to engage in estate agency work in contravention of those requirements. The penalty is, on conviction or indictment, a fine of unlimited amount and, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum at present of £1,000. There may be points
934
here on which we might have to have discussions, which could readily be arranged.
Lord SANDYS: We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for going over the clause. This matter is important to the Bill, and perhaps any points arising can be raised in private discussion later.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Obstruction and personation of authorised officers]:
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 28, leave out line 39.
The noble Earl said: I am informed that if a person wilfully obstructs an authorised officer from carrying out his duty under the Bill, those actions will fall into the ambit of criminal law and appropriate action can be taken accordingly. Furthermore, if the officer is likely to know both what type of person the agent is and his likely reaction when the officer carries out his duty, and if the officer expects adverse reactions, he can apply for a warrant under Clause 11. It appears to me that paragraph (b) already covers the situation stated in paragraph (a), in that if the person,
"wilfully fails to comply with any requirement properly made to him under section 11",
that will constitute obstructing the officer. Thus the situation is already catered for. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The Amendment would seriously undermine the consumer's right to protection and give the rogues a totally indefensible opportunity to evade detection. Subsection (1) contains four different offences. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) make it an offence to refuse to comply with a request, or to lie. These are all, as it were, failures to do what the officer has properly asked. Paragraph (a) deals with the case where the officer has a right to do something—for example, enter premises, or seize books—and the agent prevents him. The offences are thus complementary, and

935
each is needed to enforce Clause 11. I shall give only two examples. The agent who took deposits and had no cover would be able with impunity to refuse entry to the enforcement officer who sought to go into his office to observe. The rogue agent who knew that he was under suspicion could wilfully destroy all relevant evidence without attracting any sanction.
The absence of any criminal offence for actions of this kind could mean the absence of a trigger event on which the Director could consider fitness to practise. In the result, the rogue agent, to the disadvantage of the consumer and the general reputation of estate agents, would be able to evade investigation and to continue in practice though he had been in breach of the requirements of the Bill.
I am not saying that people are to be treated as guilty until proved innocent. I am saying that if we are to regulate estate agents, which we all agree is desirable, there must be power to check up on whether the rules are being complied with. Regulation is in a sense a privilege, a recognition by Government that the matter is sufficiently important to the public that they are entitled to expect honesty and fair dealing. Enforcement is the price to be paid for the privilege, and for effective enforcement there must be sanctions.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I should not want to do anything that would undermine the consumer protection aspect of the Bill. If the noble Lord says that deletion of paragraph (a) undermines that aspect, I shall have another look at the Amendment and perhaps come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [General provisions us to offences]:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 29, line 26, leave out from ("corporate") to ("he") in lint 27.
The noble Earl said: It is surely wrong that
936
"any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity",
presumably without proper authority, should be in a position to prejudice the interests of a body corporate. One can visualise the practical joker behind the empty desk, or, more likely, the malcontent member of staff who may assume a responsibility that he has not been given to commit an offence under the Bill. Surely this could be dealt with as a fraud or a deceit under existing law and for which the body corporate should not be automatically and legally presumed responsible. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Clause 28 is a common form clause in Bills creating offences which may be committed by a company. It does no good just to convict the company because it can be abandoned and the real criminal, the individual running the company, would get away scot free. The clause allows the individual responsible to be convicted, as well as the company. It frequently happens that the person running the company, particularly a dubious company, is not in law actually a director or other officer, although he may call himself such. It would clearly be wrong for him to escape by reason of some defect in his appointment. It would also leave a loophole in that such a person could deliberately appoint someone else as a nominee director while exercising the power himself. Thus this provision is a normal and a necessary one, and I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether the words in question try to catch a person who has misappropriated funds on behalf of a firm. Can we have an assurance—and this was really the purpose of the Amendment—that the firm itself will not automatically be struck off? According to Clause 28(1), if an individual is charged with an offence under the Bill, he can lay a defence. What I am not sure about relates to the situation under subsection (2). Let us suppose that a firm employs a manager, a secretary, or other person who deals with the public and who does something which is wrong, which endangers not only his own career, but also that of the firm. I should like, first, clarification on whether, in those circumstances, the firm

937
itself would be able to plead a defence to the Director of Fair Trading and, secondly, an assurance that it would not lose its licence because of the malpractice of a member of its staff.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Earl has a point which we can clarify. We are after the real rogue the, one who has "done the dirty," and it does not follow that other people who are completely innocent should suffer. This is a matter which I think can be sorted out quite easily. In the case described the company must be convicted first. The company would be liable only under the normal rules of criminal law.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I thank the noble Lord for that information, which probably covers the point that I had in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Service of notices, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I wish to raise one small point at this stage. Clause 29(1)(c) refers to the posting of a notice by the Director. The matter is further covered by the Interpretation Act 1978; in particular, Section 7. As a result of that Act the onus of proof is upon the recipient of the notice. I should have thought that in matters involving a person's livelihood, as is the case in this instance, the notice ought to be served by recorded delivery, not by ordinary post.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am not here to guarantee the efficiency of the postal service. This point is not of great importance, yet is of sufficient importance to merit consideration. I do not think that one can specify registered post or recorded delivery, but I shall check on this.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Orders and regulations]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 75:
938
Page 30, line 31, leave out ("such") and insert ("all established").
The noble Lord said: With leave, in moving Amendment No. 75 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78 as well. The purpose of these Amendments is to strengthen the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult all relevant bodies before making any regulations. The obligations placed on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Fair Trading to consult with bodies representative of the profession are inadequate. During the Committee proceedings in another place, Mr. John Fraser said:
"The Secretary of State is obliged to consult the Director, such bodies representative of persons carrying on estate agency work, and such other persons as he thinks fit".
This is not an acceptable argument. The Secretary of State should not be able to pick and choose which bodies he wishes to consult. The phrase "as he thinks fit" could well be enough to get him off the hook altogether. An Amendment is needed to ensure that any action is taken only after consultation with all representative bodies. I beg to move.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: It may be convenient—and I think the noble Lord will agree—when dealing with Amendment No. 75, to deal also with Amendments Nos. 76 to 78. Clause 30 already requires my right honourable friend to consult with estate agency bodies, among others, before making regulations about competence and other matters. These Amendments display a misunderstanding of the discretion conferred on my right honourable friend under the established rules of administrative law, as enforced by the courts. These rules lay down that any such discretion must be exercised reasonably. It would be wrong, and open to challenge in the courts, for my right honourable friend arbitrarily to exclude from consideration any body which was representative at a national level of estate agents, or of consumers; and I can assure your Lordships that he has no intention of doing so.
As the profession is currently organised, the bodies of which I am aware which are representative at a national level of significant numbers of those engaged in estate agency work are the Royal Institution, the Incorporated Society, the National Association, the Institute of Business Agents

939
and the Corporation of Estate Agents. I see no reason why my right honourable friend should not consult all of them and any others who make themselves known to my right honourable friend and who meet these criteria. Your Lordships may ask why, in that case, I do not accept the Amendments. The answer is that Clause 30 imposes a formal statutory requirement. Amendment No. 70 would have meant that my right honourable friend had to consult every single body representative of estate agents, whether local or national, and whether or not the body concerned had made known its existence to my right honourable friend. If he did not do so, then the validity of any regulations made would be in doubt. It would be intolerable if some unknown body could throw into doubt regulations made in good faith. These Amendments would thus do nothing to promote the interests of established bodies of which my right honourable friend is aware, but would obscure the position and make the task of consultation well nigh impossible. I urge your Lordships to reject the Amendments.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I think the spirit of that assurance will be quite adequate for the associations, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and not to move the next three.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [General interpretation provisions]:
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No.79:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert—
(""business property" means any land which consists, wholly or substantially, of one or more premises used in connection with a business or a site on which one or more premises are to be, or are in the course of being, constructed, for use in connection with a business except that where such land is or is to be used for both business and residential purposes it shall be deemed residential property; and for the purpose of this subsection any land which is or is intended to be, occupied and enjoyed with any such premises shall be treated as part of the premises; reference to disposing of, or acquiring an interest in business property
940
shall be construed in accordance with subsections (2)to(4)of section 2 above; and business includes a trade, profession or employment").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are both consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 79.
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 33, line 4, at end insert—
(""property" means residential property or business property").
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 33, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
(""residential property" means land which consists, wholly or substantially, of one or more dwellings or a site on which one or more dwellings are to be, or are in the course of being, constructed; and for purpose of this subsection any land which is intended to be occupied and enjoyed with a dwelling shall be treated as part of the dwelling and reference to disposing of, or acquiring an interest in residential property shall be construed in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of section 2 above").
Lord GISBOROUGH: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.
In the Title:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 82:
Line 4, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 5.
The noble Earl said: I was going to take half an hour to exploit the arguments on this Amendment, but in view of the splendid way in which the noble Lord the Minister has striven to answer all our questions with such equanimity this afternoon, and in view of, I am sure, the growing impatience of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I do not intend to move this Amendment.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [H.L.]
6.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Schedule of monuments]:
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at beginning insert—
("Subject to the provisions of subsection (5A) of this section").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I gather that, as is so often the case, it is important to find time in another place for this Bill—and it is a good Bill. I therefore do not propose to press any of the Amendments that I put forward today, but what I hope the Ministry will do is consider some of them very seriously, with the possibility of bringing them forward in another place later. The first Amendment is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 5, but I think it would be to the convenience of the House if I speak in general terms on Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, because they have the same purpose, although I shall probably formally move some of them separately in order to put them on the record. The object of these Amendments is to provide for greater consultation and discussion before a monument is descheduled. Amendment No.5 is to see that adequate publicity is given before descheduling by requiring notice in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one local newspaper; also for proper time to be allowed for representations to be made. Amendment No. 4 overcomes the Government's objection that a monument may have ceased to exist and a publication of intention to deschedule would be a waste of time. Amendment No.3 requires that interested bodies or organisations be consulted. Amendment No.2 requires consultation with the Ancient Monuments Board.
The need for these measures is, I think, exemplified by the bridges on our canals. They are very important and a feature of our canals to canal-users. Many of them are privately-owned. I think that the British Waterways Board and all users of the water would be rather disturbed if these were descheduled without any opportunity for the British Waterways Association on their behalf to raise objections if this seemed reasonable. Amendment No. 6, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for speaking to Amendments Nos.1 to 6. I am grateful to him for raising these questions. I am aware that there has been some concern and, I believe, some misunderstanding about proposals which would allow the Secretary of State to exclude a monument from the Schedule or to amend an entry. I am also glad that he has spoken to his Amendments comprehensively, and I propose to reply in the same way.
I will try to make absolutely clear what is, and what is not, the intention of subsection (5) of Clause 1. Its sole purpose is to provide proper machinery for what already happens in practice. It will not provide an alternative to the grant of scheduled monument consent after due application and consideration, including the opportunity of a public local inquiry or hearing.
Under the existing legislation, there have always been cases where, for one reason or another, it has been necessary to remove a monument from the next published list. Three recent examples may be of interest. A Martello Tower in East Sussex was descheduled after it had been converted into a dwelling-house and, therefore, taken outside the scope of Ancient Monuments legislation. That tower is now a listed building. A medieval chapel site was similarly descheduled after the site had been excavated completely by archeaologists, since the monument as such no longer then existed. Dunham Bridge, on the border of Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, was descheduled after the owner had demolished it with the Department's agreement, after every effort had been made to find an alternative solution.

943
You may be assured that descheduling will only take place in similar circumstances to those I have described or where later knowledge shows that the monument was not what it at first appeared to be: a windmill mound wrongly taken to be a burial mound, for example. Descheduling is merely the inevitable recognition of something that has happened or has been discovered. Descheduling would not be appropriate where a monument continues to be of national importance and—I repeat this with emphasis—it would not be proper to use it to relieve a developer of the statutory requirement to seek scheduled monument consent for any proposed work.
Clause 1(5) also provides for amendment to an entry in the Schedule. This again is something which already happens in practice. It may he necessary to correct an error in some point of fact; or it may be decided, on the advice of the Inspectorate and in consultation with the Ancient Monuments Board, that the schedule area should be extended or reduced. These arrangements have been the practice ever since the Act of 1913. I am not aware that anyone, during those 66 years, has called them in question, but the opportunity provided by this Bill has been taken to provide proper machinery. The noble Viscount is now proposing that we should create an elaborate new procedure. I do not believe it will be helpful to do so. Neither do we think it will be necessary.
May I deal first with his point that there should be an obligation always to consult the Ancient Monuments Board about these particular matters? Under Clause 22 of the Bill, the Board has a right to advise about any relevant matter, and specific mention is made of certain potentially sensitive issues. including descheduling. The Board are the Secretary of State's statutory and trusty advisers. It is unthinkable that the Department would not seek the Board's advice on any such question wherever there was any point at all in doing so. But there could be cases where there was no point: for example, the Board might already have been consulted in relation to an application for scheduled monument consent and advised that the application should be granted, conditional perhaps on a full excavation; the monument would be destroyed; descheduling would be a con-
944
sequential formality. We do not want to be obliged to waste the Board's limited and valuable time. If, however, the Board were to ask to be consulted or notified about every case in any of the categories in Clause 22(7) (including descheduling) I assure your Lordships that the Department would readily comply with that request. In relation to descheduling, notification would provide a safeguard with less risk of wasting time.
The noble Viscount has also suggested that the Secretary of State should consult such organisations and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in any such proposal. I trust that what I have already said about the purpose of this provision has demonstrated that there would generally be no benefit to be gained from such consultation. Where it could be helpful I assure your Lordships that the Department will continue to consult as it has done on occasion in the past, and will inform interested bodies when such action has been taken. But we do not need a statutory provision to this effect.
The noble Viscount would limit by statute the grounds for descheduling so that this could only be done where either the monument had ceased to exist or where it was no longer in a condition justifying its inclusion in the Schedule. Certainly, these are, broadly, the reasons for descheduling, but they are not the only reasons: it is, as I have shown, necessary to deschedule when a monument becomes occupied as a dwelling so that the protection of listing as an historic building, where appropriate, may apply; there is also the occasional case where a mistake has been made in the first instance. Neither of these cases would be covered by the noble Viscount's Amendment; the monuments in question would have to remain on the Schedule forever. What I believe is really required is not an exclusive list of grounds for descheduling but a firm assurance that descheduling will never he used for inappropriate or improper purposes. That assurance I gladly give.
Finally, the noble Viscount would require that all proposals for descheduling or amendment must be advertised and provisions made for the consideration of representations and objections. I hope I have demonstrated that this is unnecessary and that it would generally be a

945
waste of public time and money. The moment for such public advertisement is not on scheduling or descheduling. It comes when an application is made for scheduled monument consent to carry out works, and it will be done then, whenever it may be appropriate, at the Department's expense, so that the views of all concerned may be considered.
The noble Viscount has said that the British Waterways Board are concerned that the Department might deschedule, for example, a canal monument such as a bridge which is part of the amenity of the waterway or liable to affect the safety of the waterway. The only occasion the Department would have for descheduling a bridge would be after it had lost its archeological value; for example, by being strengthened with modern material or because it had been demolished. In either case there would have been application for consent and the Department would have notified all interested bodies, including the British Waterways Board, about such an application. Scheduling has no effect on responsibility for the safety of a structure and in the case of a privately-owned bridge over a waterway, the owner is personally responsible, and his responsibility would be in no way lessened if the bridge were descheduled. In so far as any works on the British waterways or any monuments are concerned, I am completely satisfied that my Secretary of State would make sure that the British Waterways Board knew what was in mind and would be taking the necessary advice from them. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that we have been able to answer most of his points; and, as he said he is not proposing to press his Amendments tonight, I hope that he will also consider that it is not necessary to raise them at a later stage.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I find the Minister's reassurance covers most of the points, so I shall withdraw this Amendment. I propose to move the next Amendment formally and withdraw the others in this set.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask a question? I do not know whether the Minister can answer it immediately. Is it really so that strengthening a scheduled building with modern materials makes it
946
eligible for withdrawing from the Schedule?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness answers that point, may I put one further point which arises out of her comprehensive reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth? I think she said when discussing the provisions of Clause 22(7) that if the Ancient Monuments Board felt it necessary to offer any advice to the Secretary of State with respect to any of the matters covered by that subsection, the Secretary of State would always be bound to receive such advice; in other words, the initiative was in the hands of the Ancient Monuments Board and not the Secretary of State. This is a very important point of interpretation which is not absolutely clear from the wording.
I wanted to ask the noble Baroness something which arose from an earlier discussion; that is to say, whether it would be the normal practice of the Ancient Monuments Board to include any such advice as given under subsection (7) in their annual reports. This would be an extremely important safeguard that everyone would know what advice was given to the Secretary of State and then if he ignored it people could evaluate the decision in the light of those representations. If the noble Baroness could clear that point up, it would be most helpful.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In so far as modern materials are concerned, it depends of course on the extent to which one uses modern materials as to whether one completely destroys the ancient monument that one is trying to protect. If we have reached that stage then the monument would be a candidate for descheduling. In so far as the advice of the Ancient Monuments Board is concerned, they are the Secretary of State's advisers and they have the right to come forward and offer him advice at any time or on any particular cause for concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of whether they would compulsorily include their advice to the Secretary of State in their annual reports. I took advice on this and I am told that what is in the annual report is entirely a matter for the Ancient Monuments Board.

947
I am quite satisfied that if there was anything that they considered controversial, they would have no hesitation whatsoever in publishing it in their annual report so that everyone knew where there had been some disagreement at some time. It does not appear to happen that way at the moment and I hope it never will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 21, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the Ancient Monuments Board").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am most reassured by what the noble Baroness has said. It would still be a good thing if in all these cases the Ancient Monuments Board were consulted and their point of view considered. It could be just a formality which will not take any time. It would ensure that everything which the Department are proposing to do has been done. There are always slip-ups and if the Ancient Monuments Board have it on their agenda there is just that possibility of picking something up. I should feel very happy if this could be reconsidered. I do not propose to press this Amendment. I shall wait to see whether anybody else wishes to speak.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Amendment is not implicitly dealt with by the normal procedures of the Ministry. Is it possible that the Ministry could take a decision without consulting the Ancient Monuments Board? If that were the case, the noble Viscount's Amendment might be unnecessary.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we feel that the Amendment is unnecessary. Descheduling is restricted to the factual situations; for example, where the monument no longer exists. There will be a statutory requirement under Clause 1(6) to inform the local authority and owner occupier concerned in the action to be taken, and we think that there seems little point in a statutory requirement to consult on matters about which there can generally be no dispute. If the noble Viscount is still not happy, I am prepared to have
948
further talks with my adviser and come back to him before the next stage. We think at the moment it is quite unnecessary.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Disposal of land acquired under Part I]:
6.47 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 29, line 34, at end insert—
("(5) No land shall be sold under this section without first being offered to the original owner from whom it was acquired compulsorily or his successors for sale at an open market valuation, which failing agreement shall be fixed by the District Valuer.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to ensure that land acquired in some cases compulsorily must first be offered to the original owner or successors before being sold on the open market. I would have thought that this was a most important provision. I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say on the subject. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I understand it, the intention of this Amendment is to ensure that, when a monument or land which has been acquired compulsorily under the provisions in the Bill is to be disposed of, it is first offered back to the original owner or his successors. Since the Crichel Down case of the 1950s this has indeed been the practice of Government Departments and local authorities. You have my assurance, my Lords, that the established practice will be followed in the rare event of a proposal to sell an ancient monument or associated land. If one were going to make statutory provision about the matter, one would want to do it in a Bill that had general application, and not in an Ancient Monuments Bill. I hope that, because of my assurance, the noble Viscount is satisfied that his Amendment is unnecessary and that indeed good practice is already followed by the Department.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Power of investigating authority to investigate in advance of operations notice any site which may be acquired compulsorily]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No.8:
Page 37,line 20, leave out from beginning to ("authorise") in line 22 and insert ("If an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers notifies the investigating authority for any area of archaeological importance that it proposes to carry out, or to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment, in a slightly different form, was proposed by the noble Lord Lord Mowbray and Stourton, during Committee stage. I said then that the Government sympathised with it in so far as there could have been a chance that an investigating authority might have sought to exercise its right of entry otherwise than at the behest of the purchasing authority. The Amendment I am now proposing has the same effect as Lord Mowbray and Stourton's Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and the Government for bringing forward this Amendment. At Committee, she said they would consider this. This is a very satisfactory way of dealing with the situation and I should like to thank the noble Baroness.
Clause 44 [Supplementary provisions with respect to powers of entry]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 40, line 45, after ("house") insert ("or any garden or other land used for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house").
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I am merely trying to get from the noble Baroness and the Government a matter of definition. As the Bill is written, it appears by implication to give a right of entry to the garden of a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Act. This is a new power. In the Ancient Monuments Act
950
1931 these powers did not exist but now it looks as though a dwelling-house or building, park, garden, pleasure-ground or other land used for the amenity of convenience of a dwelling-house is excluded from the powers of forcible entry without the owner's consent. I do not for one second believe that the Minister or the Government intend this to be so, and I put down this Amendment chiefly to try to get an answer to that point of suspicion. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this is the Amendment which seeks to amend Clause 44 on lines which are partly the same as those in Section 9 of the Ancient Monuments Act 1931. When the Bill was being drafted this clause was very carefully considered. The Government have no wish to seek needless powers to invade the privacy of owners or occupiers of land; but none the less important ancient monuments are sometimes to be found in gardens and similar land and I can see no reason why such monuments should not, like any others, be investigated, scheduled where appropriate and subsequently inspected from time to time.
The right of entry proposed in this clause like all rights of entry proposed in the Bill, would be exercised with discretion. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, but I cannot agree that where a monument is perhaps in danger it should be impossible for us to obtain entry. I must advise the House that this Amendment as it stands is not acceptable to us. There are not very many of these monuments in private gardens. We have got parts of Hadrian's Wall which come in people's gardens and we have visible remains of the Archbishop's Palace at Otford in Kent. We are indeed giving grants for the repair of a garden wall in Winchester which is scheduled, and there are Tudor conduit houses in the gardens of houses in Richmond in Surrey. At least one of those is in the guardianship of the Department. Those are the kinds of instances where we think it is right and proper that we should be able to get in to make sure that they are being kept in a state of repair and are being looked after; but they are powers that will be used with very great discretion.
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way she has explained

951
the Government's intentions. I appreciate all the points she has made. I can think of one of the three areas at Borough-bridge in Yorkshire which is in somebody's garden, which is well looked after and the owners have had no cause to complain. Bearing in mind that this is a limited application and that the possibility of use of this clause is limited, and also bearing in mind the Minister's explanation, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Expenditure on Archaeological Investigation]:
6.53 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
("(4) Without prejudice to the application, by virtue of section 53 of this Act, of any other provision of this Act to land which is not within Great Britain, the powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable in relation to any such land which forms part of the sea bed within the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters adjacent to the coast of Great Britain.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have a couple of Amendments here on the same lines: one is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, and the other is my own. The Amendment that I am moving is intended to meet the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, that Clause 45 should be extended to apply to the seabed where it is considered that the seabed may contain an ancient monument or anything else of archaeological or historical interest. Clause 53, which relates to monuments in territorial water, only applies with respect to monuments which have been discovered and scheduled. I have adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, that Clause 45 should be extended to cover the seabed. It is unnecessary to refer to the sea shore, since that is already covered. I beg to move.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
("(4) In this section 'land' shall include the sea bed and the sea shore.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put down my name in support of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, but due to some error it does not appear on the Marshalled List. Nevertheless, he has asked me to move his Amendments for him. I am not certain how far the Amendment we have just agreed covers the points that I want and so I will speak to them.
It would be for the convenience of the House, I think, if I speak in general terms again to this Amendment No.11 and also to Amendments Nos.14 and 16. The object is to put the sea shore and the seabed on the same footing as land. This Amendment, No. 11, permits the Secretary of State to assist in or defray or contribute to the cost of archaeological investigation, in the same way that this assistance can be given for land. It seems to me that this is really only reasonable and it does not seem to me to be covered under the Bill: I may of course be wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I said in moving the previous Amendment, we accept the desirability of extending Clause 45 to cover the seabed with a view to enabling archaeological investigation thereof in appropriate cases. There is no present intention of incurring such expenditure but it is conceivable that a situation could arise where there is a reasonable case for doing so. Accordingly I agree that we ought to ensure that the Secretary of State or the local authority should not be frustrated just because we have not got statutory powers there. I believe that if the noble Viscount will have another look at my Amendment No.10 he will find this more effectively achieves his purpose and that in particular there is no need for the Amendment to mention the sea shore since the sea shore is already within the scope of this clause.
The noble Viscount also spoke to Amendment No. 14; he referred to Nos. 14 and 16. On No. 14, I think the main aim is to allow parts of the seabed to be designated as areas of archaeological importance. As I will explain, the purpose of the provisions in Part II of the Bill is to provide the opportunities for archaeological investigation, and more particularly excavation, prior to operations which will disturb or destroy archaeological strata. The provisions in question have

953
not been designed for, and indeed do not suit, the seabed. I concede that we should not preclude the possibility, in very rare and special cases, of marine rescue archaeology by agreement; but I must say quite plainly it is not the Government's intention to bring the wholly inappropriate provisions of Part II to bear on the seabed. Areas of archaeological importance will not be designated at sea. We have provided that a monument of national importance in territorial waters may be scheduled so long as it is not otherwise protected under the Protection of Wrecks Act. Once it has been scheduled, all the other provisions of the Bill will apply to the monument, including the relevant provisions of Part III. That, I believe, is the way to deal with this particular problem rather than by applying the provisions of Part II of the Bill. The provisions of Part III already apply in relation to the schedule of monuments in territorial waters and in relation to such monuments when they are scheduled. The Government see no need to make any express provision for the application of Part III of the Bill in the context of Clause 53. I would hope that the noble Viscount would not press this particular Amendment.
On the other points raised on the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, the procedure of the designation of an area of archaeological importance is a lengthy one. It would not become effective until some eight or nine months after the publication of the proposal. Designation is not, therefore, appropriate for providing immediate protection to threatened archaeological sites. Scheduling is quite a different matter. Where an ancient monument that the Secretary of State considers to be of national importance is in jeopardy, a notice of scheduling can be served on the owner and occupier without any delay and will take immediate effect. The normal procedure would be to send a preliminary letter to interested parties and to seek their views; then to present those views and the opinion of the Inspectorate to the Ancient Monuments Board and seek their advice, and only then proceed to scheduling. Those are the present arrangements and they will continue to be the normal practice under the Bill. But a monument known to be in danger can be given instant protection under the Bill, no less than
954
under the existing provisions, and, whether a monument is on dry land or beneath the sea, that is the way to deal with the situation which the noble Viscount has in mind, and not designation.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which seems to cover the points that were worrying us. I am not absolutely sure whether she said that financial assistance would still be possible in the same way as it would be on land. Perhaps she could just clarify that.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes.
Viscount HANWORTH: Then, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Application to Crown Land]:
7.1 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("land") to end of line 22.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it will be to the convenience of the House if I speak to this Amendment and Amendment No.13. It appears that a Department of State can do what it likes with a scheduled site on its own land, without consulting the DOE. I hope that I can spear the Minister on Morton's two-pronged fork. Some noble Lords may remember that Morton was Chancellor to one of our Kings, and he was charged with trying to collect money. So that when he went along to a baron and found that he was living luxuriously, he said "You must have plenty of money. You can give to the King". On the other hand, if the baron was obviously not in a very good way, he said "You must be saving a lot of money. You can spare that for the King".
What I am saying here is that if other Departments are always so reasonable and always consult the DOE, there is no reason why they should be specifically excluded from the Bill. If, on the other hand, there are cases—and I believe there are, as there are bound to be—where a Department is considering its own interests, perhaps quite naturally, and is

955
not paying due regard to the archaeological significance of something, then it would he a very good thing if it had to consult the DOE. Whatever the Minister may say, I believe that it is only human nature to give one's own departmental interests higher priority than somebody else's. If that is not the case, I question why it seems to be a ploy of past Prime Ministers to change the Parliaments, but to have the same civil servants appear in different Departments. Presumably, the object is to get closer liaison and a more balanced view over a given area. I beg to move.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this Amendment, in the light of the fact that the Crown is a very much larger owner of property and of land than was ever envisaged at the time of the original Act, or indeed the major revisions of it in 1913 and 1931. We now have enormous property empires under the control of the State, such as the Property Services Agency, the Forestry Commission, the Department of Transport and several others, but the three I have mentioned are the ones that are of greatest importance in this connection.
The Forestry Commission alone takes many thousands of hectares every year for planting, and, obviously, that is essentially to the good of the nation, because it saves foreign currency and enables us to be more self-sufficient in the products of these trees, such as newsprint. But it must be extremely difficult to oversee these operations and to ensure that, when vast acreages are being planted in this way, field monuments and other antiquities are not destroyed by the plough. What is really required is something that was mentioned in an article, which has been drawn to my attention, in the magazine Rescue. I am afraid that I cannot quote the date, but the authors, Angela Jackson and Michael Yates, wrote that it was understood that the Forestry Commission and the DOE were shortly to negotiate a national policy towards ancient monuments. I think that if there were a published code of practice which the Forestry Commission were obliged to follow, or which they voluntarily accepted, this would be a good substitute for accepting the kind of obligations that I apply to private owners of land.
956
I am afraid that it is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has remarked, that from time to time one hears stories about the desecration of ancient monuments by these bodies, and I should like to quote one or two instances that have been drawn to my attention, the first being the Forestry Commission itself. It is said that an iron age multi-barrowed hill fort, about four miles east north-east of Clun in Shropshire, was recently damaged by strong winds. I believe that there used to be dense tree cover for these hill forts. Then, subsequently, the Forestry Commission brought in bulldozers, which was probably more a case of bad management than bad conservation and deliberate damage.
The second example that has been quoted to me is of work connected with the Thames barrage, which is going on at the moment, and which I take it must he under the auspices of the Department of the Environment. It is said that 12 Roman lead coffins were unearthed during these works, and that they were hastily buried again. The third example is an important one, because it relates to the construction of roads, an activity which is rather too extensive in this country for my liking. We seem to be bent on establishing a vast motorway network just in time for when the oil runs out, when there will not be any cars to drive on the network. But, he that as it may, for the Chester ring road they certainly went through an area within the medieval town, and just outside the Roman town, which is of tremendous importance and there was hardly any record of what was bulldozed or destroyed. That was in the late 1960s.
Then there is the whole programme of motorway construction, where I am told there is, generally speaking, a fairly good record of co-operation with archaeologists on the M.3, the M.11 and the M.2. But it is far from perfect and the question one would like to ask is: Why should it remain voluntary? I accept, although having had it explained to me several times I do not altogether understand, the reason why Crown land should be exempt in the way it is under the Bill. I agree with the Morton's fork argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. But if we have to take it that Crown land is exempt, then it seems to me that to have no obligations publicly laid on the shoulders of these bodies is a dangerous

957
and unsatisfactory way in which to leave the Bill.
Therefore, as an alternative what we should do is try to develop specific arrangements and codes of practice, such as were mentioned in the article that I quoted. Perhaps they would be different in the case of the Forestry Commission, the Property Services Agency and the Department of Transport, because the exigencies of the work are not the same in each case. One can well understand that it would be far more costly to impose delays while archaeologists are evaluating finds in the case of construction work in a large city, or construction work on a motorway, where contractors might want to be expensively compensated for the delays, than in the case of the Forestry Commission. So I am not saying that the same code of practice, or the same arrangements, ought to apply in every case. But what is essential, from the point of view of archaeologists and members of the public as a whole, is that we should know precisely what is required of the developers concerned, and that information should be available in a readily published form.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us a little on what goes on behind the scenes, because I am convinced from what I have been told that, generally speaking, these public owners of land are at least as responsible as private owners. But I think that the practices of these public owners need to be seen, and one needs to satisfy archaeologists that what they are doing is at least as good as the private owners.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if I follow the thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should totally agree with everything that he has said if it were the case that all he has said could be totally substantiated by fact. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give an answer regarding the Woolwich Barrage and the 12 Roman coffins which were destroyed by some nasty Government body, because the implications are slightly frightening. My personal experience of the Department of the Environment leads me to believe that this can hardly be true. I prefer to think that many of these worries are old wives' tales. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is far too responsible a person
958
for that, as is my noble friend Lord Avebury. He is not my noble friend politically, but he is my noble friend otherwise. Both noble Lords feel great concern over this matter, as do I.
The Crown has a responsibility and, so far as I can see, it has tried to be whiter than white. It is important that this should always be seen to be the case. Whether it is an agent of the Crown who is not letting the Crown know—as I suspect may be the case—is another matter. However, the Crown must be seen to be whiter than white. What follows from that argument, if it be true, is that the Crown must control those contractors who do not live up to the desired for standards.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, Government Departments are in no way bound by the existing Ancient Monuments legislation, but they have none the less co-operated fully in all the matters affecting its implementation. This Bill provides that the Crown shall be statutorily bound in certain limited respects, but otherwise it follows the traditional principles of Crown exemption.
The first Amendment would require Crown bodies to seek the consent of the Secretary of State in respect of works affecting a scheduled monument on Crown land. This would produce a curious result, in that in many cases the Secretary of State for the Environment, wearing his Property Services Agency hat, would have to seek statutory consent from himself, with his ancient monuments hat on. Under the second Amendment, the Crown would have to serve an operations notice on the local authority and submit to the decision of the investigating authority as to the extent and the nature of the investigation to be undertaken. This would be a breach with tradition and, in our view, an undesirable one, since the Crown needs the right to refuse access to its sites in those very exceptional cases where security or other arguments of overriding national importance so demand.
The Government Departments and the other Crown land holding bodies have been consulted about the provisions of the Bill. They have all agreed to continue to abide by the spirit of the legislation except

959
where there are overriding considerations in the public interest, in which case they assure us that they would normally be ready to state their reasons publicly. The tried and tested administrative arrangements which exist in other areas of legislation, notably in development control, show the advantages of this non-statutory co-operation.
In the past, the Crown has been totally exempt from ancient monuments legislation. The existing arrangements are based on mutual consultation, often based on an elaborate, agreed code of practice, as in the case of motorway and trunk road construction. They provide a desirable means of flexibility and they often result in greater rather than lesser benefit to the archaeological interests.
These Amendments raise important constitutional questions. They break with the precedent of Crown exemption from statutory development control. It is not normal in legislation to allow other bodies access to Crown land as of right. However, in accordance with well tried and tested principles of good administration, parallel non-statutory consultation procedures will ensure that, subject to security and matters of national importance, the Crown would expect to be able to offer the same facilities for inspection and investigation as will be required of the non-Crown developers. In the wider sphere of planning control, the administrative arrangements which apply between Government Departments are well-understood and well-established, so I can see no positive benefit in insisting upon adopting strictly formal arrangements between Government Departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what is meant by Government Departments and other Crown bodies abiding by the spirit of the legislation, and referred in particular to the dangers for archaeology inherent in the operations of the Department of Transport, the Property Services Agency and the Forestry Commission. I am happy to have this opportunity to assure the House that all these bodies, and others, maintain good and often detailed working relations with the Department of the Environment and with its Ancient Monuments Directorate.
The Department of Transport carries out its operations according to what is known as the Highways Manual, which is also
960
used by road construction units, who are the people on the ground. Volume 2, chapter 5, of that manual deals with the arrangements for rescue archaeology, for excavation in advance of road building schemes, for archaeological study while road building is in progress, and other related matters. The Ancient Monuments Directorate are sent copies of the draft road schemes so that all concerned may be made aware as soon as is practicable of the archaeological potential of the area affected.
The manual also stresses that the Department of Transport and the road construction units must immediately inform the Ancient Monuments Directorate if any archaeological finds are made. These arrangements have worked well and in many instances have led to greater benefits than might have been obtained from private developers under existing legislation. In the case of the Milton Keynes bypass, for example, the road building contract contains specific and detailed provision for archaeology, and there have been similar arrangements in relation to the M.3. During the construction of the A.1 Welwyn bypass, a Roman bath house was discovered, and this has been preserved. The road bridges it, and the public have access to the bath house.
The Property Services Agency, as one of the biggest developers in the country, is well aware of the Department's responsibility for ancient monuments, and there are internal instructions which ensure a good working relationship between the developer, the Property Services Agency, the archaeologist and the Ancient Monuments Directors. Indeed, the Property Services Agency has now set up its own conservation unit, and very shortly an internal circular will be issued on its function as a focal point co-ordinating conservation and preservation matters, where appropriate, within the Property Services Agency.
In so far as the Forestry Commission is concerned, my understanding is that their attitude towards scheduled ancient monuments on their land and on land upon which they are asked to advise has been both helpful and understanding. Indeed, their co-operation is greatly appreciated by my Department's Ancient Monuments Directorate and we commend their approach as a model to others.

961
The Commission and its area offices consult the Ancient Monuments Directorate regularly for advice, and there has been no conflict either when a monument on Forestry Commission land has been scheduled or when the Commission has been advised not to plant its trees too near to a particular monument, to avoid causing root damage. These, and other Crown land owning bodies, were all consulted during the drafting of this Bill, and all of them have given a specific assurance that they will abide by the spirit of the new legislation.
If and when this Bill is enacted, the existing arrangements to which I have referred, and others in respect of similar bodies, will be overhauled to see how they should be updated in the light of the new and the wider provisions of this Bill. So we are not just sitting back and letting this Bill do the work. We are looking at how we can improve codes of practice and how we can improve co-operation. I regret that I have no detailed knowledge of the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised tonight; namely, Clun, the Thames Barrage and the Chester ring road. All 1 can say is that the Thames Barrage is not, of course, a Crown development. However, I shall look into the matter, and if I can let the noble Lord have any further information about these three cases I will write to him.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask her why the Highways Manual should be a public document available to anyone, as I understand her, who can obtain access to it in the public library, whereas in the case of the Property Services Agency, which the noble Baroness herself described as "a very substantial development" the circular containing the instructions to staff on how they should act in these circumstances is an internal one and presumably not available to members of the public? Is this not inconsistent and would it be possible for the noble Baroness to consider publishing the internal circular?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it certainly might be inconsistent on the face of it, and I am prepared to look at it to see whether it is possible for us to publish that as well.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I think that in her statement the noble Baroness was reassuring on this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Treatment and preservation of finds]:
7.22 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 49, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any right of the Crown in relation to treasure trove.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 54 empowers the temporary removal of finds. It is possible that the Crown's ownership of treasure trove might be thought to be affected by the right of temporary custody conferred by clause 54. This is not intended and we hope that this Amendment will make the position clear. I beg to move.
[Amendment No.16 not moved.]
Schedule I [Control of works affecting scheduled monuments]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 61, line 19, leave out from ("State") to ("shall") in line 20.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. The omission of these words will strengthen the position of the applicant or (as the case may be) the objector and, in the latter instance, the Amendment will bring the relevant sub-paragraph into line with the procedure in Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946. The effect will be to place the onus on the Secretary of State to order a public local inquiry or to afford opportunity of hearing and remove any necessity for the individual concerned to require the Secretary of State to act. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 63, line 2, leave out from ("State") to ("shall") in line 3.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 1979
7.23 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 21st February, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There are in fact two relevant Motions which it may be convenient for us to discuss together. The two that I shall immediately be dealing with relate to England and Wales, and there are two corresponding Motions relating to Scotland. The first in order on the Order Paper is the Legal Aid and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1979. All four regulations are, in effect, part of the package of improvements in the financial conditions for civil legal aid and advice and assistance generally, which I promised last year and about which I gave details in the House on 8th February when I moved the Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill.
I am particularly pleased to be able to move these regulations, as when I announced what was considered at the time to be a somewhat controversial measure, namely, the restriction of legal aid for undefended divorce proceedings following the introduction of the new divorce procedure, I said that I hoped to be able to bring forward measures to improve the availability of legal services as soon as resources allowed. At last I am able to do so.
The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations increase the lower disposable income limit, that is the limit above which one ceases to be eligible for free legal aid, from a disposable income of £815 to a disposable income of £1,500. The term "disposable" means the income which is left after deductions have been made for tax, rent or mortgage, other necessary expenses such as travelling to work and allowances for dependants. The
964
regulations also increase the upper income limit, above which one ceases to be eligible for legal aid, from a disposable income of £2,600 to £3,600. The lower capital limit, which is the nest-egg one is entitled to have without having to make a contribution, is increased from £365 to £1,200 and the upper limit, above which one will not normally be entitled to legal aid, from £1,700 to £2,500.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No.2) Regulations relate to the green form scheme. They increase the eligibility limits for legal advice and assistance from a disposable income of £52 a week to £75 a week and from a disposable capital of £365 to £600. Other regulations which have been laid, but do not require the approval of the House, increase the lower free disposable income limit from £25 to £35 a week and make consequential amendments to the scale of contributions.
I mentioned that in assessing a person's disposable income allowances are made for dependants, which for this purpose includes a spouse. These allowances are currently aligned to supplementary benefit rates, but a further two sets of regulations which have already been laid, but do not require approval of the House, will increase those allowances for both legal aid and legal advice and assistance so that they will be 50 per cent. above the appropriate supplementary benefit rates for the particular dependant. This improved allowance will help parents with children considerably. Indeed, the whole package of improvements which I am introducing in the legal aid field will, above all, help families with limited resources.
The opportunity has been taken to simplify the regulations relating to the assessment of resources by incorporating some allowances in the scale and adjusting others. That simplification should remove the necessity for interviews at legal aid assessment offices in a large number of cases and will be a convenience to all concerned.
Although it is difficult to make accurate estimates about the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid, because the limits relate to disposable income, which of course varies according to a person's commitments and family, it is clear that far fewer people are now within the scope of the scheme than when it was

965
first introduced in 1950. The increases which are made by these regulations and the others to which I have referred will recover that lost ground, so that over 70 per cent. of the population will be eligible for legal aid and over 30 per cent. of households consisting of two parents and two children will not be required to pay any contribution. With regard to the question of contributions towards the cost of civil legal aid, as the House will know, a Bill which is at present before another place will enable me to reduce the maximum percentage contribution payable by those persons whose disposable income is above the free limit. These regulations, together with the others to which I have referred and the Legal Aid Bill will be the most significant improvement in the legal aid scheme for nearly 20 years. My Lords, beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 21st February be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.30 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think it would be to the convenience of the House if we discussed all these four sets of regulations together. It does not look to me as though many noble Lords with a legal background are here this evening to make much complaint about them; certainly I am not. It would he presumptuous of me to say that there would be a great deal that could be added to what the noble and learned Lord has just said, bearing in mind that we debated this whole subject on the Second Reading of the Legal Aid Bill at the beginning of February. On that occasion he brought out from the cover of the Brown Paper for the first time the contents of this bit of his package, and, although it was sprung upon some of us for the first time, I do not think there was any adverse comment on that occasion, and so far as I am aware there has not been any since.
As it seems to me, the true measure of this is that we are restoring the provision of legal aid to those people who were originally intended by Parliament to have it, because in the original legislation all these financial limits were laid down in the Act itself. It is only since then that bit by bit—and this was a process that was finalised in the Legal Aid Bill now in another place—Parliament has been able to deal with the matter by way of regula-
966
tions to alter, as inflation takes place, the various financial provisions. Of course, inflation, has overtaken this scheme to a very large extent, and the noble and learned Lord is really simply saying that so far as these particular regulations are concerned he is restoring the scheme to what Parliament judged was right in 1949.
There are other measures, which we also welcome, which simplify the procedure, which are not subject to the Motion today. Again, we discussed those at the beginning of February, and those I also welcomed then, as I do now. I should have thought that these regulations should come into effect as soon as is possible which is at the beginning of next month, I do not wish to add anything else, except that I think it would be churlish if I did not thank the noble and learned Lord for having achieved this at a time when there is considerable financial stringency, so bringing this matter back to the balance that was originally thought right.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I too would like to add the thanks of my noble friends to those expressed by the noble Viscount to the noble and learned Lord for having achieved this step during, as he says, a period of very severe financial stringency; it is something of a triumph and one which is very welcome indeed to us on these Benches. It is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Wigoder has expressed himself on several different occasions. I imagine that no one thought in 1950, when legal aid came into being, that inflation would erode it as rapidly as it has, and that the proportion of the population who would be eligible would decline so steeply. Although, as the noble and learned Lord has said, it is very difficult to estimate the exact proportion of the population who are eligible, because of the problem of evaluating the disposable income, one estimate I saw was that something like 80 per cent. of the people were eligible in 1950 and that that had fallen, before these changes, to a figure in the region of 25 per cent. As the noble and learned Lord has said, we are now restoring the position to what it was at the beginning of the scheme. So I too hope that this will come into effect as soon as possible so that the people concerned may have the benefit of it, and legal aid will then be available to those Parliament first intended it should be given to in 1950.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for the support they have given to these regulations. They remedy what was becoming a serious matter of public and, indeed, private concern. I share their wish that the regulations will now make a speedy passage through this House and another place.
I do not know whether I sufficiently indicated that the Scottish regulations provide similar improvements for Scotland, as do the regulations which are headed, I notice, for England, but also include Wales. On this rare occasion England embraces Wales and is not defeated by it, if I may be permitted a most improper passing reference to recent events. I beg to move the first Motion.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1979
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Regulations laid before the House on 21st February, he approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No.2) REGULATIONS 1979
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Regulations laid before the House on 21st February, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) REGULATIONS 1979
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, for the purpose of speeding matters, I beg to move that the fourth Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1979 be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

OIL POLLUTION NORTH OF SCOTTISH MAINLAND
7.38 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what recent reports they have received on oil pollution in the sea area north of the Scottish mainland; and what connection it has, if any with Sullom Voe, in Shetland, where the continuous use of the new oil terminal is of great importance to the economy of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am asking the Government:
"what recent reports they have received on oil pollution in the sea area north of the Scottish mainland; and what connection it has, if any, with Sullom Voe, in Shetland, where the continuous use of the new oil terminal is of great importance to the economy of the United Kingdom".
There is a serious threat to wildlife. Many sea birds have been killed by oil in the area of the Orkney and Shetland Islands. It is not the result of a single sensational incident such as an accident to a tanker. The sources are not, therefore, obvious or yet individually identifiable.
I submit that action is urgently necessary to stop the practices which are causing this pollution, not only to protect the coastlines but also to preclude the possibility of the flow of oil from the British sector of the North Sea being delayed. I declare an interest, as I have done before, in that 1 act as a consultant to an oil company. The company is the operator of a field from which oil is now moving by pipeline to Sullom Voe. Indeed, in a year or two, the new oil terminal there is expected to have passing through it about half of Britain's oil from the North Sea. I have for many years belonged to wildlife conservation bodies in Scotland—in particular, the Scottish Wildlife Trust. I am also Vice-President of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea, known as ACOPS. I regard these various interests as being credentials for speaking on the disquieting situation which has arisen. I shall describe briefly what has happened.
Three to four weeks ago there were signs of a steady increase in the spread of oil being deposited on beaches in Orkney and Shetland. In the past few days it has been killing birds. In the last week or so it has killed and injured the sheep which customarily graze on seaweed. A letter in the Daily Telegraph of 8th March from the Development Officer of the Scottish Wildlife Trust sounded the general alarm. The letter stated that:
"reports … from Orkney and Shetland about widespread increases in apparently small-scale oil pollution incidents, causing an insidious build-up of oil on all the beaches",
were being received. The letter continued by saying that the oil was not bunker oil—the type which had been spilled during an accident at Sullom Voe at the end of December. It was therefore likely to be the result of ballast tank operations at sea. Indeed, some unscrupulous captains of tankers may have been so tempted because the evidence of their ballast operations would be lost in the results of that accident.
The effects of the accident at Sullom Voe were reasonably well contained. I am drawing attention today to the operational pollution, not accidental pollution. I am drawing attention to the deliberate emptying into the sea of water from ballast tanks—water which contains some oil—and to the washing out of tanks at sea. Some of that, of course, may be perpetrated by tankers passing by which are not connected with Britain or Sullom Voe; indeed, going from one point distant from our shores to another. As they pass through an area where there is some pollution they may be tempted to carry out ballast operations. But it seems likely that most of the pollution has been caused by tankers heading for Sullom Voe, where they were due to load oil.
The terminal at Sullom Voe is designed to have facilities to enable ballast water to be released and treated there. My information is that the first of those facilities will not be available before next month. There will still not be enough capacity for some time to meet the expected demand, and even when all the plant required is available some delays are bound to be caused by its use. Masters of tankers may be tempted not to lose that time, which can be expensive. For example, the recent Atlantic and North Sea weather,
970
which has been very rough, has probably caused tankers to have considerable ballast on their way to Sullom Voe. If the tanker can jettison some of that ballast before it reaches the calmer waters near the Shetland Isles then there is more capacity for oil to be loaded. Indeed, the contract may have been arranged on the basis that a certain quantity of oil will be loaded and the vessel may have started with too much ballast for that to be possible. If this debate does nothing else, I hope that it will impress on shipowners and captains of vessels that they must give overriding instructions that international rules be observed and that no ballast operations be carried out which would cause any oily water to enter these seas.
During debates in your Lordships' House in recent months we have discussed tanker design and methods of operation—for example, segregated ballast tanks, methods of load on top and crude oil washing. I shall not embark on those matters again now, but I simply remind the House that satisfactory arrangements are being made by international agreements, provided that they are observed in future. However, lapses have been occurring now in the seas to the north-east of Scotland, probably for the reasons which I have suggested. They could together add up to disastrous results, if continued. For should the pollution of beaches increase, and should the toll of animal life rise, these could be regarded as intolerable by the general public. There could very well be pressure then to close the terminal at Sullom Voe for a time. But the United Kingdom needs the oil now. Delay would do an injury to our economy.
It is clear that most of the pollution—perhaps all of it—in the area in the past few weeks has been caused by the deliberate discharging by tankers of oily ballast water. International agreements already exist to prevent that. The conventions, protocols and ratifications now prohibit such action. I recognise that there is a gap, that some vessels may be registered with non-signatory countries to those agreements. Monitoring and enforcement are the problems, especially at night when tankers can carry out ballast operations under cover of darkness. It is imperative that the Governments, tanker owners and the oil companies concerned

971
impose strict policing of these international agreements and exercise severe discipline on guilty vessels. Action is, I know, already being taken and it is in their own interests that it should be taken. They would all suffer if the Sullom Voe terminal had to be closed for a period. In particular, the United Kingdom's supplies of oil from the North Sea would be slowed down. I remind your Lordships that there is the Flotta terminal in Orkney, on one of the small islands. That has been functioning for over two years. It will never be on the scale of the Sullom Voe operations of the future. The factors which I have described connect the ballast offences with Sullom Voe rather than with Flotta, but I mention that there is, of course, a terminal there too.
As regards the action that is being taken by the part of the industry about which I know, BP is the operator of the terminal at Sullom Voe. The Sullom Voe Association has been formed. It is a partnership representing the local authority, the Shetland Islands Council, and companies with an interest in the Sullom Voe terminal. I know that the association has arranged that all ships calling at Sullom Voe be instructed that no cargo tank ballast shall be discharged on either the inward or outward voyage. At the terminal the operator, BP, will hand any available evidence to the United Kingdom authorities and reserves the right to refuse to load vessels which have offended. I also understand that the Sullom Voe Association has recently required that tankers in waters around Orkney and Shetland en route to Sullom Voe should advise the terminal of their exact position and route when north of a certain latitude. So far as the Government are concerned, I am informed that the Department of Trade has decided to maintain a continuous presence in the area by appointing a permanent surveyor at Lerwick in the Shetland Isles.
Those are examples of actions which are being taken by the authorities and companies concerned. In addition, ships' logs and oil record books are being inspected to detect any illegal discharge of ballast. There is a case, at present, where a tanker, which is suspected, has mislaid its records. I understand that it is still on the high seas. It will be interesting to
972
see whether its records turn up at its next port of call.
The companies concerned have also asked all their aircraft—which work for them in different respects, whether they are ferrying men to oil rigs and platforms or doing other work—to keep a constant surveillance of shipping in order to report any incidents of oil pollution. The owners and operators of ships are being advised that these and other steps are being taken, and that any evidence obtained will be handed over immediately to the United Kingdom authorities. I know that the companies concerned are also considering further action, including new provisions in contracts where necessary.
I hope that in reply the Government, for their part, will say that they are taking the situation seriously and that they are lending their authority to further action in concert with the local authorities and industry. In particular, the Government are best placed to pursue action against substandard tankers. I know that the whole question of jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit—which Britain still observes—is one which creates doubt and difficulty. Again, that is a matter for the Government. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who will be following me, is an expert on this aspect and no doubt will comment on it, so I shall not pursue that matter.
As Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister in Scotland for local authorities and planning, among a host of many other things, I was involved in the early 1970s in the choice of both Sullom Voe and Flotta as terminals. At that time the aim was to achieve terminals and pipeline landfalls at sensible places—sensible from every point of view: economic and environmental. It was also an aim to obtain adequate control to protect the community as a whole and the local environment from any adverse effects. We aimed too to avoid unnecessary delay, as the construction of those terminals was urgently needed. The oil is now flowing through the terminals. It is helping our economy and our balance of payments. We now need that oil perhaps more than we thought, especially with the closedown, for a period, of oil from Iran. It has proved a blessing for Britain that, after expeditious examination, permission was

973
given for the two terminals in Shetland and Orkney. Their construction was started in good time. Therefore, the House will understand my personal concern that this wilful oil pollution should be arrested immediately, and that the sources of it be traced and eliminated with vigour and determination.
7.53 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for drawing this problem to our attention at this time. In raising this Question he has brought his knowledge and experience to bear on it and put forward some very useful and constructive suggestions. In this respect I am not as qualified as the noble Lord, but in my view oil pollution is not simply about dead birds on the beach, but about spillages at sea. I believe that any efforts that we make in this House, together with any efforts that are made by conservationists and other members of what could be described as "anti-pollution lobbies", must concentrate on the cause rather than the effects of this problem of oil pollution.
It is quite a problem because the present estimated world oil pollution from all sources comes to a depressing total of 4,897,000 tonnes per year. That figure excludes spillages and pollutions from the North Sea. Once the North Sea wells begin to operate at full production, they will no doubt make their contribution to this total, just as every other oil well has done in other parts of the world. Therefore, I am afraid we can expect annually 5 million tonnes of oil pollution.
This Question raises the point: what efforts should be made at this stage to try to foresee the problems that we shall face when the North Sea is working flat out? Is it that we must wait until there is a major disaster at Sullom Voe before we put forward frantic and swift legislation to rectify it? Could we not foresee the inevitable? Or at least do something to prevent it? My right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Grimond, has been in the forefront of recommending measures to protect the environment and the inhabitants of the Shetland Islands from just the kind of pollution problems that we have today at Sullom
974
Voe. It would seem that in the past all the warnings of my right honourable friend have been ignored and I hope that now at last some, if not all, of his recommendations will be noted by the Government—more precisely, those which he has identified as the delay in operating the shore terminal facilities for ballast cleaning and the lack of a full number of inspectors to monitor the discharge of oil at sea.
It is that last point on which I wish to dwell for a few moments. As I understand it—and it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—the onus of pumping out ballast tanks remains firmly the responsibility of the master of the ship as he approaches any terminal, including the one at Sullom Voe. Masters of these vessels are under considerable pressures when they approach an oil terminal in any part of the world. Some of those pressures are commercial, as was mentioned by the noble Lord—namely, that the vessel should have the fastest turn-around possible in order to save the company money. The second pressure is the unmanageability of these very large vessels at slow speeds and often in turbulent weather. Therefore, the safety of the ship is obviously of paramount importance.
I regret that the third pressure of emptying his ballast tanks in such a way as, to protect birds on the beach comes very low down on the list of a master's considerations as he approaches an oil terminal. Therefore, as has been mentioned and as we all know, he is tempted to discharge oil in any form—bilge oil or ballast tank oil—usually under the cover of darkness, and it does not seem to make much difference whether it is inside or outside territorial waters. The most obvious answer would be to extend our territorial waters to, say, 200 miles. That could alleviate some of the problem, provided that the territorial waters were monitored and properly inspected in order to prevent this problem. I believe that the temptation to discharge would be that much less if there was adequate inspection in a much wider area than our present three-mile limit.
Another point, which the noble Lord did not raise—although I am not familiar with the technicalities of discharging ballast at sea—is that there are available

975
on the market commercially successful dispersants, such as SeaWash and others of that variety, which could be carried on board all oil tankers and which could be used when pumping out the ballast tanks. I believe that to a certain degree this is covered in the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, Section 4 of which says:
"For the purpose of preventing or reducing discharges of oil and mixtures containing oil into the sea, the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring ships registered in the United Kingdom to be fitted with such equipment and to comply with other such requirements as may be specified in the regulations".
In reply, I wonder whether the Minister can give some indication whether or not vessels must carry under this Act adequate equipment to use a dispersant for the purpose of ballast discharge. I feel that this could be an area which we might be able to concentrate on, in that the master of the vessel would still be able to discharge his tanks at sea but be able to do so responsibly and with a proper chemical that could make the oil disperse before he entered the environment of any nation-State, and more especially when he approaches Sullom Voe.
There is one final point I wish to make, and I think to merely extend one which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. If this kind of pollution continues at this rate and creates this form of public concern, the Shetland County Council will have to consider closing the port, which they can do simply by withdrawing the tugs. I do not think that this will be the correct measure. It can only be a temporary measure. It will affect the whole economy of this country if such a closure is forced by public concern—and it would be for the wrong reasons; the wrong reasons being that we have not got adequate protection, or legislation, to ensure that masters behave responsibly in the area of Sullom Voe. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, makes his contribution he will be able to cover some of the points I have mentioned, and perhaps advise the House whether they could be practically applied in the conditions we have at the moment.
8.2 p.m.
Lord RITCHE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the Vice-President of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of
976
the Sea for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I want to underline all that he said, and thank him for the constructively useful way in which he presented it. All that has happened illustrates a difficult situation. When we look at the cost benefit of great enterprises they do not seem to take into account that something like the "Esso Bernicia" incident can in fact trip up the whole operation. Putting in the precautionary measures is an essential of the operation itself, and not just an additional convenience.
It seems to me that that was where this particular discussion of the last few weeks started, because the "Esso Bernicia" was acknowledged as an accident. You cannot really say "an accident in the best sense of the word," but you know what I mean. The fact that the safety precautionary measures did not operate effectively (but still contained a considerable amount of the damage), as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, has now been used as a pretext, a device, to cover the disposal of ballast waste at sea.
I have said in your Lordships' House before that pollution is a felony compounded of avarice and ignorance. We do not pretend for one moment that ships' masters are ignorant of what they are doing. They may not have taken into account the considerations that Lord Tanlaw raised, but they know what they are doing. They know that it is now against international law. However far the obligation has been accepted by whatever flag of convenience they may be flying, or whoever the owners are, is another matter, but the fact is that it is now an offence.
I want to say to my noble friend the Minister that we cannot be satisfied with a recurring situation in which we wait for something to happen and then decide how to act. There is no reason why each disaster should be treated ad hoc, which is what we are doing now. One of the considerations at Sullom Voe was that the ballast reception facilities were not available, and are not yet available. I gather that although some facilities are expected to come into operation within a few weeks, it will be some time before the full capacity of ballast waste disposal can be effective.
This is in an area in which load on top—that is the other device for containing

977
waste ballast—cannot function because it is a short voyage. The oil and the water can settle. What we are suffering from, even on the scale of giant tankers today, is the old schooldays' illusion that oil and water do not mix. I can assure you in terms of ballast that they do. When the ballast water is ejected—and it may be for purposes of rigging or perfectly legitimate purposes; there may have been very bad weather and the safety of the ship may be involved—it is adding to the whole of our problem.
The tragedy and in fact the scandal—and that is why I stressed the word "avarice", even though I am limiting it in this case to the returns to the master of the ship himself—is that at this moment the North Sea and the pretext of the "Esso Bernicia" are being used as a public convenience. It is in fact the ship masters going behind the hedge. They are discharging their waste, and we know it beyond any question. This is not the oil of the North Sea wells. It is not the oil of the "Esso Bernicia". It is in fact the oil from ships' discharges. There is no difficulty about identifying it. You cannot identify the source, but you can certainly discover that this is not the kind of oil traceable, for example, to an accident or a collision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, this is a very vulnerable environment in the Orkneys and Shetlands, not only in terms of wildlife—and the effects have been pretty bad—but regarding the livelihood of people like the Shetland shepherds whose sheep have died from eating the oiled seaweed and whose wool has been ruined by the oil on the fleeces. This has affected again the cottage industries of the Shetlands. This brings up the question of the whole mechanism. This is where I am entitled to address myself to my noble friend on the Front Bench in terms of what is, or is not, the Government's responsibility. I want to welcome in the first instance something which, although it was initiated and stimulated by Government, has not been simply a matter of Government intervention. I welcome the No-go area agreed by the Department of Trade Working Party in Aberdeen last Thursday. This was an initiative of the Shetland Association. This is a partnership of the Shetland Islands Council and BP, who are the operators of the terminal. It has
978
been agreed (and it is a very sensible arrangement) that the zone in which the ships will not navigate is in the region of the 10 to 12-mile limit. The routeing of tankers offshore will in fact reduce the risk of damage. This is a difficult area, as everybody knows. We are told about the terrific storms in the Pentland Firth, and so on, but the risk of tankers grounding is even more possible in this region.
This particular zone is the kind of thing which should be reinforced generally by the proper specification of a 12 mile limit. I am glad to see, as we on the Advisory Committee have been advocating and have been supported by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, that in addition to advocating a 12-mile limit, they say:
"We advocate giving the coastal State wider powers to prevent pollution within its exclusive 8-mile economic zone [and] we recommend the extension of United Kingdom territorial waters to 12 nautical miles".
I know, because I am heavily involved with it, what the difficulties and delays are in relation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea, but I assure noble Lords that we cannot wait even for the outcome of that. We cannot wait because we are, in our own enclosed seas, running into all the hazards which in the long run the Conference on the Law of the Sea might multilaterally, internationally, control.
In respect of the kind of problem we are discussing—the indiscriminate disposal of waste in the North Sea, on our doorstep as it were—I suggest that we should, for this purpose at least, assume, first, a 12-mile limit in order to intervene when we see pollution taking place. Secondly, by agreement will all concerned (it does not matter whose 200-mile zone it is, Norway's, Holland's or anybody else's in the North Sea) wherever, within the 200-mile limit of any country, action which creates pollution is spotted, this power to intervene should be available.
That brings me to a point which I hope the Government will effectively reinforce, namely, that we want to get the authority of the port States to bring to book those who cause this pollution. Cannot Her Majesty's Government agree to enforce a port State jurisdiction and bring to our own courts offences committed anywhere in the contingent seas, offences which are against the common interest and against internationally agreed rules?

979
What can we do at present? If somebody is seen disposing of waste at sea—say, a Greek tanker under a Panama flag—what can people invigilating this sort of abuse do? All we can do is to get in touch with the Panama Ambassador or Embassy or Liberian Embassy and say, "One of your people is being very naughty. Would you mind slapping them over the wrist?" That sort of thing is not tolerable these days. What is occurring is becoming a total abuse. We should therefore have power, in terms of our service to the world, not just in our own interest, to bring these people to book and deal with them summarily, in a way that I hope would be commensurate with the offences being committed.
We have the recent development of a quite useful contribution by the admirable county council, if I may call it that, in Shetland. The whole approach of the Shetland Council has not been obstructive or totally mercenary, although it has agreed to a considerable expansion. It has now set up an invigilating system and is watching, even by aircraft, and by alerting in the way Lord Campbell said, all ships of good intent in the area asking them to notify any abuses at sea. They are also using infra-red at night. These developments are all to the good. I hope Her Majesty's Government will by any means—I have stressed this many times add have communicated it to the Secretary of State for Scotland—back up this demonstrably sound type of intervention.
Two things are critically important. I cannot repeat often enough in this House that we need an increase in our hydrographic survey. There is no question about that; this is a need and is in no way special pleading. Above all, in the region of Orkney and Shetland we are now bringing 200,000-ton tankers into areas which are practically unsurveyed. I believe I am right in saying that we do not even now have a survey of the bottom of Scapa Flow, although the Germans sank their First World War ships there. The ships, even the great warships that were sunk, are there, and they are at less a depth than is required by the great supertankers now in use, so we must face up to that problem. The Trade and Industry Expenditure Sub-Committee justifies what I am saying.
980
Obviously, the Government appreciate the point because they have said their report, and I will underline only this part of it:
"hydrographic survey effort beyond that needed for defence"—
because at the moment the hydrographic survey is still nominally under the Ministry of Defence or is a Naval concern—
"is required for the safety of merchant shipping and the prevention of pollution accidents in waters around the United Kingdom and should, to the extent that it cannot be met by increasing the price of charts or by subvention from industry, be met by the Department of Trade".
We in ACOPS have been saying that for a long time; that this is a civil matter of great importance which should at least be recognised by the Department of Trade The report says:
"To the extent that it cannot be reasonably found at the expense of that Department's existing programmes, the necessary money should be released from the contingency reserve".
I call that evidence in aid. I respect, as your Lordships will, the fact that this Government, like other British Governments, are extremely conscientious about international obligations. We do not "jump the gun" or take advantage of international agreements; we wait and co-operate. Here, however, I urge my noble friend, is something which calls for emergency action—unilateral, if you like—by the British Government to ensure that pollution from these ships is not allowed to go on.
8.19 p.m.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: My Lords, I need not detain the House unduly because my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy provided a great wealth of valuable and helpful information which I need not repeat. Clearly, the continuous use of the new oil terminal at Sullom Voe is absolutely vital to the economy, either now or in due course. The question that matters is this: Did economic or political considerations in this case overwhelm proper concern for the marine environment and, if so, who did the arm-twisting?
It certainly looks to me as if the opening of Sullom Voe was premature. Deballasting reception facilities were not available and, until two weeks ago, they were not operating, and I do not know whether they are operating yet. In

981
those circumstances I cannot understand how anybody could claim that the terminal should have opened when it did. Either the Departments concerned were responsible for egging on the opening of Sullom Voe, for motives of short-term economic advantage, which we can all understand; or if they were not, then they were responsible for allowing the terminal to be opened before all the facilities were ready.
Proper standards of control are universally accepted in the case of land traffic, and more expressly with air traffic, including continuous supervision and enforcement and severe penalties for errors and offences. Whereas in the case of land and air traffic the purpose of this whole spectrum of surveillance is simply to save a handful of human lives, albeit a very worthy aim, the absence of the necessary standards of control in the case of the seas will certainly result in the steady degradation of the natural, and therefore the human, environment. It will be the next generation who will suffer.
For the sake of future generations, therefore, we cannot rush in and just grab what we seem to need today, particularly as the resource will still be there tomorrow if we move with more responsibility. It seems to me that, on the one hand, there is a lack of urgency regarding the preservation and conservation of the seas around our shores, while, on the other hand, there is a mad sense of urgency in order to exploit the oil and other resources. As we all know, efforts are being made to get international agreement on laws for the sea. Here I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is right in saying that we should not jump the gun. My feeling is that, on a universal basis, international agreement is yet a long time away, and in the end will come only through example, by a nation, or perhaps a group of nations, courageously jumping the gun, taking the lead, and risking the hazards. Waiting for international agreement and ultimate signatures could mean that nothing will evolve for decades.
Failure to initiate and enforce the necessary disciplines at sea, perhaps unilaterally, has up to now been due to a number of factors. First, as I mentioned in the previous debate last year, up until a few years ago, when I was on the
982
Royal Commission dealing with pollution, there used to be a kind of Drake/Vasco da Gama complex about the freedom of the seas. But the tanker disasters seem to have shaken us out of that. Next, we are apparently fearful of imposing disciplines and penalties on foreigners in the North Sea for fear of retribution to our vessels in other parts of the world. Is any foreign nation really going to retaliate on the grounds that it is in favour of polluting the sea? If so, we should now bring it under international scrutiny; the sooner, the better.
Today we have a third new factor with which to contend: the political and economic impulse to exploit all our oil resources at the first possible moment, regardless of the consequences. I fear that the result of this short-sighted opportunism in the case of Sullom Voe—unless I am much mistaken—is that somebody in power now has oil all over his face, while thousands of seabirds, Shetland sheep, otters, and marine life have it all over them.
I remember saying many years ago, when 1 first became aware of the prospect of this country joining Europe, "Thank God; now we shall he able to do something about pollution of our rivers and estuaries, and about the conservation of the North Sea before it's too late". Surely we can recognise the huge advantages of a united Europe to the human environment and to the generations of the future. Surely, instead of being solely preoccupied with farm prices and the current profit and loss account of the EEC, we should also courageously take the lead in the world with our European partners in enforcing vital disciplines on the mariners and sea captains around us; in my view not in territorial limits but, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, suggested, throughout the North Sea and further.
How can this be done. I know that I am accused of being an idealist, reaching for the moon. But there are available today the most sophisticated forms of photographic and radar equipment—used primarily by the super-Powers for defence—which are capable of watching and monitoring from the air (both from aircraft and satellites) the conduct of all ships at sea, especially oil tankers. I am not an expert on these matters, and so I do

983
not know whether this can be done at night. An aircraft was sent out recently from Shetland as a matter of urgency; but the surveillance must be continuous and permanent. Without being disparaging, I should say that this recent action was merely a pittance in the context of what is permanently required.
Secondly, I should like to propose that all ships using the North Sea be required by countries bordering the North Sea to have their names and country of origin painted on top, clearly legible from the sky. There are no aesthetic arguments against this because people do not usually look at ships from the top. If this were not done within a reasonable period, those operating the ships would have to be penalised. These measures in themselves, including a captain's awareness that he is probably being watched, might go a long way towards acting as a deterrent.
Next, fines and penalties for oil offences in the Channel, and North Sea, and the Western Approaches should be punitive, including in serious cases, refusal of access to ports, or impounding of ships in port. Again, the mere prospect of this could well induce significant results.
I was interested to hear about the new Sullom Voe Association. I find it somewhat remarkable that some action has now had to be taken by a consortium of the Shetland Council and the oil industry, both being parties with a vested interest. That is not to say that that is not a very welcome and an admirable initiative. However, apparently the best that the Government have been able to do, according to what I have read, is to be kept informed. So where does the leadership lie?
When it comes to daily control, monitoring and surveillance from the air (on the lines that I have suggested) and many other methods, no doubt the subject of costs will be raised; but again we in this country must get our priorities right. For example, each year we spend millions on the arts, so how can we fail to spare whatever is required to ensure the future survival of our marine environment, which for these islands implies our whole environment?
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has dealt with questions regarding
984
birds and wildlife, and so I shall pass over those points and conclude where I started I believe that opportunism, reckless haste, for quick result, and political or economic arguments overriding prudence are all tendencies which will prove to be no service to the future generations in Britain. Primarily we should combine with our partners in Europe and demonstrate the basic long-term benefits to the North Sea environment of the European Economic Community, and not allow opportunist decisions to undermine an aggressive policy of North Sea control. All Departments of Government are doing a great deal, but it all tends to be somewhat defensive and is concerned with what should be done after a spill. We must impose fearlessly tough and continuous surveillance and control over those mariners and ship captains who, by illegal discharges of tank waste and dirty ballast water, are not in my view going behind the hedge, but are quite brazen in giving a Harvey Smith sign to all the codes and disciplines that should apply.
8.28 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I fully endorse every word so far spoken in this debate and my sole purpose in rising at this late stage is to commend the Government, particularly the Department of Trade and the Department of the Environment, on having organised a seminar on emergency arrangements for combating oil pollution. The seminar was held today, from 9 o'clock in the morning until after five in the afternoon at the London Press Centre. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend and I must say that I was tremendously impressed not only by the authority of those who contributed to the discussions but also by the wide range of questions which followed. The seminar was attended by some 400 delegates from a wide range of public authorities; many of them were sent along by their respective county councils, particularly those county councils whose borders include part of the coastline; and the contributions included many from people who, as I said, spoke with the highest authority.
Curiously enough, this seminar was held under the title of "SEACOP", the letters representing "Seminar for Combating Oil Pollution". If one is willing to accept as a colloquialism the word "cop" for policeman, perhaps no happier

985
title might have been chosen. But what impressed me enormously about this conference was how everyone who participated in the discussion was deeply concerned, not only about the need to keep our beaches clean, and not only about the urgency of the problem of preserving wildlife, but also simply about preserving our coastline for its sheer intrinsic beauty. That in itself is something quite regardless of any economic advantage which might accrue: maintaining the beauty of our countryside, particularly this incomparable coastline which we are fortunate enough to possess.
In the discussions, of course, the question turned again and again on the washing out of ballast tanks by irresponsible ships' commanders, especially the commanders of those ships registered at ports of convenience. I speak now as a layman and in almost complete ignorance of the subject, but the question was raised whether there could not be used for the washing out of these ballast tanks some kind of material that would prevent the oil from floating on the surface; whether some research should not be carried out into the use of some detergent which would enable the oil to sink, and not pollute the surface of the sea. Of course, arising out of that there was the wider question whether any ship's captain should be permitted to indulge in the washing out of tanks within a certain limit, certainly within 50 miles of our coastline and, if possible, even the 200-mile limit which was tried to be imposed as the limit for our own fishing industry. But surely it ought be prohibited, under the severest penalty, for any ship's captain to attempt the washing out of his tanks within sight, and certainly within the near approaches, of our own coastline.
Again, the question arose—and this has been referred to by several speakers already—as to the urgent importance of maintaining a constant survey of these ships, as they approach our oil terminals; and whether here not only aerial surveys by means of aeroplanes, or perhaps helicopters, should not be maintained, but even whether, if necessary, during the night time, helicopters with powerful headlights, whenever they see a ship or the shadow of a ship, should not switch on their headlights and track the pathway of the ship as it approaches close to our own coastline. Matters were also discussed as to the responsibility of our local county
986
councils in maintaining the cleanliness of their beaches, certainly after cases of pollution. A very instructive paper was read by the county oil pollution officer of the Suffolk County Council, which was involved in a recent instance of severe oil pollution off Lowestoft, telling of how other instances had occurred of dirty tanks being washed out within the approaches of the Stour, affecting Ipswich and Harwich ports in his area.
He was followed by the Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment speaking on the Government's role in assisting the local authorities in keeping their beaches clean. He spoke of the question of stockpiling in cases of severe emergency, when a local authority had insufficient facilities to cope with the immensity of a problem suddenly facing it. The question also arose as to where the stockpiling should take place; and why, in particular, it should be in Bristol. What about the reaches of Scotland and the other parts of our shores, and particularly Sullom Voe, in Shetland, which has been referred to constantly in tonight's debate? And it was asked whether the stockpiling should not be distributed among certain other regions.
Of course, looming large especially was the question of financial assistance to local authorities from the Government. Although the culpability must rest ultimately on the owners of the tankers, the owners of the cargoes and the captains of the ships responsible for any obvious breaches of ordinary maritime and amenity considerations, in the short-term, it was said, the Government had a very important responsibility to bear. The immediate responsibility, of course, was on the local authorities, but where the problem is too large for them to deal with and is a matter of extreme urgency, the Government should not hesitate to give aid, financial assistance and certainly technical expertise, although as a result of trial and error many of the local authorities are already extremely expert at coping with these problems—except, of course, a problem of such severe magnitude as occurred in the case of the "Amoco Cadiz", which, fortunately, this country has not quite had to face. Nevertheless, the problems which have arisen from tanker mishaps which have involved our shores have been severe enough.

987
So I think it would be only right to say a word of commendation to the Government for having this matter discussed so widely; and to ask them to face up to the financial responsibilities which are inevitably involved in dealing with this problem—and there could be no limit to the financial demands of an extreme, severe emergency. It is also right, I think, to ask the Government to maintain through the Warren Spring Laboratory and other means at their disposal continuous research into dealing with the various aspects of this problem. Research must go on endlessly so long as oil remains a major source of this nation's energy.
8.38 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this has been an important short debate, and I very much welcome the contributions made by the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, and other noble Lords, all of whom, I think, have a particular knowledge, and different aspects of knowledge, of this important subject. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate; and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Segal has taken part and has given your Lordships an instant report about the important seminar held today, which he attended.
Much has been said and written about the damage done to bird life by the spill, resulting from an accident to the "Esso Bernicia", as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has said, of heavy fuel oil at Sullom Voe, and by other incidents at sea reported since December, which have been referred to today. I regret to have to inform your Lordships that these reports are not exaggerated. The damage done to bird life referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is the worst at any time since the "Torrey Canyon". All told about 6,500 birds from about 50 different species have perished. Some of these have been important species whose European presence is concentrated in Scotland and whose numbers are not great at the best of times. Surveying has been difficult and it is likely that total casualties will turn out to be greater than those reported up to now. Representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council and the RSPB, as well as volunteers, have been working to alleviate the suffering.
988
The "Esso Bernicia" incident was our first experience of an oil spill which killed species other than birds. Some 11 dead otters have been found and others have been sighted with oil on their coats. Some of these will die. The contamination of seaweed and of the foreshore has been particularly worrying for farmers and crofters whose sheep take much of their sustenance there, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has said. It is reported that some 50 sheep have died either from drowning or from eating contaminated seaweed and some 2,000 more have oiled fleeces. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is liaising with the Shetland Islands Council on the provision of fences to prevent sheep from getting to oiled beaches and on the provision of feed-stuffs, at no costs to farmers and crofters, to entice sheep away from the shore. It is clear that the oil and the oiled seabirds on Orkney, Shetland and Caithness are the result of some tankers discharging illegally oily ballast water. Her Majesty's Government utterly condemn this filthy practice and I might add that the great majority of tanker captains and tanker companies who are concerned to behave properly and responsibly, wholeheartedly share this view—as I know does the general public.
I may remind your Lordships and those outside this House that this practice is prohibited by international law. Under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954, as amended in 1969, ships may not discharge oil anywhere at sea unless the ship is moving and the instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content does not exceed 60 litres per mile. As an additional protection, oil tankers may not discharge oil from their cargo tanks within 50 miles of the nearest land and may not discharge on any ballast voyage a total of more than 1/15,000th of their cargo capacity. Discharges from other ships and from tanker bilges must be made as far from land as practicable: in addition, these discharges must have an oil content of less than 100 parts per million.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 will further strengthen these standards by limiting the amount of oil that may be discharged by a new tanker on a ballast voyage to 1/30,000th of the cargo

989
carried on the previous laden voyage. For other ships (and tanker bilges) the discharge well have to take place more than 12 miles from land—instead of "as far as practicable" which was the wording previously.
The relevant United Kingdom legislation—the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971—provides heavy penalties: a fine of up to£50,000 on the owner and/or the master on summary conviction and an unlimited fine when convicted on indictment. The Government therefore are taking this very seriously. This should be clearly understood by everyone. Given the proper evidence, the Department of Trade will prosecute and the courts, I am sure, will make full use of their powers. And in the case of foreign ships discharging outside our territorial waters, we shall bring this to the notice of the flag State concerned to take similar firm action. These problems are not being treated on an ad hoc basis, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder supposes.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, I would also say that before work on the Sullom Voe terminal was begun, extensive environmental studies were carried out by a body known as the Sullom Voe Environmental Advisory Group set up on the joint initiative of the then-Zetland County Council and the oil industry. In addition to the industry and the local authority, the Group had representatives from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Natural Environmental Research Council and the Scottish universities. The Group set in hand some important studies of different shore lines to act as the baseline for future monitoring studies. It also did valuable work in identifying where treated ballast water could be safely discharged into the Voe and on recommendations about the type of oil spill clean-up equipment which should be made available at Sullom Voe. Since 1977 the important task of environmental monitoring and advisory work has been in the hands of the Shetland Oil Terminal Environmental Advisory Group—a body with a wider platform of opinion and a greater Shetland representation than its predecessor.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, there has
990
been mention of the fact that the ballast water treatment facilities at Sullom Voe are not yet ready. But these should be in use by the summer. Let us be clear that this does not justify discharging oily ballast at sea. It is perfectly possible to avoid this by proper operating procedures: clean cargo tanks can, for example, be set aside for carrying ballast, even if this reduction in cargo capacity involves a commercial penalty. The lack of deballasting facilities is not the cause of pollution. Pollution is caused by the inexcusable action of some unscrupulous tanker masters. It is this that Her Majesty's Government, the local authorities and the oil industry are determined to stop. The international oil companies and BNOC, who are loading oil at Sullom Voe, are considering what sanctions they can invoke against individual ships' masters who will not co-operate.
The Sullom Voe terminal operator and the Sullom Voe Association, a partnership representing the Shetland Islands Council and companies with an interest in the terminal, are also taking steps to prevent these foul and unnecessary discharges. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, tankers en route to Sullom Voe are being required to advise the terminal of their exact position and route when north of latitude 58°20' North. Aerial surveillance is being maintained over the route and any oil pollution observed will be fully investigated. Ships seen to be causing oil pollution will be reported to the authorities. Measures are in hand to ensure that tanker owners make sure that crews are advised of these measures. Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome this action.
Much is being done, therefore, and talk of a closure of the Port of Sullom Voe is exaggerated and would be wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has said. Rear-Admiral Stacey, Director of the Department of Trade's Marine Pollution Controlled Unit, spent the week beginning 5th March in Scotland. He visited both the Orkneys and the Shetlands and held a number of useful and constructive meetings. He will be reporting to the Department of Trade and to the Scottish Office. The Department of Trade also sent one of their marine surveyors to the Shetlands at the end of that week. A surveyor will continue to be available in the area to inspect tankers and advise on any anti-

991
pollution work that may be necessary until the end of April when a surveyor—who has already been chosen—will take up a permanent appointment.
At the meeting held in Aberdeen last Thursday between officials of the Department of Trade and other Departments, and attended by representatives from the Shetlands and Orkney Islands Councils and the oil industry, great concern was expressed about the recent oil pollution at Shetland. The oil industry emphasised their determination to take all practical steps against offenders. Those present recognised the advantages of routeing tankers further offshore, and it was decided that the Shetland Islands Council and the oil industry should formulate an improved routeing scheme for consideration at a further meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked about the extension of territorial limits. It is true that an extension of our territorial seas to 12 miles would allow us to prosecute foreign ships which subsequently call at our ports for deliberate discharges up to 12 miles from our coasts instead of up to three miles as at present. This is one of the factors being weighed by Ministers in their current consideration of the problem. I might add also that the Informal Composite Negotiating Text currently under consideration at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference would authorise any State to prosecute foreign ships for discharges in contravention of applicable international discharge standards on the high seas.
Very large crude carriers and indeed any large tankers, are unsuitable for use as dispersant spraying vessels. They are too large and too unmanoeuvrable. They should certainly not follow oil as it is carried closer inshore and into shallower waters by the wind and waves. Section 4 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, to which the noble Lord referred, relates to equipment for preventing or reducing discharges of oil and not to equipment for dealing with oil once spilled.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked about enforcement. We believe that the prime responsibility for enforcing international conventions should remain with flag States; only they can generally enforce standards on a particular ship
992
consistently over a period of time. We accept an increasing role for the port State—that is, the State at whose port a ship calls—and recent IMCO Conventions include port State control provisions. We are doubtful about enforcement by the coastal State; that is, a state whose coasts a ship is passing. If this right means anything, it means a right to arrest a ship at sea, and that can lead only too easily to accidents, loss of life and pollution, particularly if action is taken by ill-equipped and impetuous régimes.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder also asked about hydrography. The Government accept that our civil hydrographic requirements call for some provision over and above that made for purely defence reasons. I am glad to say in answer to my noble friend that the Government are actively considering how this provision should best be met. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are therefore greatly concerned about the worrying and, I repeat, wholly unnecessary pollution problems that have arisen in the area. They and others concerned have taken immediate action and will continue to keep a close watch on the situation as it develops. A report on the efficacy of the new measures which have been introduced has been requested by the end of the month.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [H.L.]
Petition against, from the General Council and Register of Osteopaths Limited, withdrawn.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.