Lords Sitting of 15 October 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

LORD WEINSTOCK
Sir Arnold Weinstock, Knight, having been created Baron Weinstock, of Bowden in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Aldington and the Lord Zuckerman.
The Lord Zouche of Haryngworth— Took the Oath.
The Lord Leconfield and Egremont— Took the Oath.

SICKNESS BENEFIT: COST
2.47 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 is their estimate of the extra cost to the private sector of paying eight weeks' sick pay at a minimum of £30 a week instead of the £18·50 previously paid from national insurance funds.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, sickness benefit is payable at a rate of £18·50 a week to people without dependants. Additions for dependants are payable on top of this. Paragraph 29 of the Green Paper Income During Initial Sickness: A New Strategy, states that, on the basis of the proposals put forward, employers' wage bills would rise by about £415 million, upon which they would have to pay national insurance contributions and national insurance surcharge. It is the Government's intention that employers, as a group, should be compensated for these extra wage costs by an appropriate reduction in their national insurance contribution. I would stress that the Government have not come to
1294
any firm conclusion on the shape of the scheme and that therefore any costings must be provisional and subject to a wide margin of error.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he probably will have public support for a measure which seeks to bring about a state of affairs where people are not better off when drawing untaxed benefits than they are when working? Is this not a bad time to add an extra financial burden to British industry and, more especially, to small firms who are already very seriously strapped for cash?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, we are talking about a Green Paper and we have had consultations with many organisations and individuals over the past six months. All representations had to come in by 30th September. The great majority of people approve what my noble friend referred to, the taxation of sick pay, so that people are not better off when sick than when they are at work. There were many criticisms in detail of the Green Paper proposals. All these proposals are now being carefully examined. There were many representations about small businesses and I know that my right honourable friend is very sympathetic to small businesses and will want to do all he can to help them.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that the Government are sympathetic to small businesses. The record shows that they are lacking in compassion. So far as this scheme is concerned, why do not the Government drop it? It is stupid. It affects businesses; it affects the recipients of pensions. The whole idea is crazy. Drop it and forget it!
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course fully entitled to his views, but they do not happen to be shared by the very large number of people who have been giving their representations. I agree that they do not like many of the details, but in principle they agree.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what the position will be regarding payments in respect of part-time workers?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the scheme will only apply to those people who are paying national insurance contributions; that is, people earning over £23 a week. Those who are getting a small amount over £23 a week will not, of course, get the minimum of £30. There is a scheme being worked out by which small earners will get a proportion of their earnings. This might be 75 per cent. It would be absurd, for instance, if somebody earning £24 a week was paid £30 a week when sick.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what is the estimated gain either to the Treasury or to the national insurance fund as a result of the scheme?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the cost to the employers will be compensated by the Government. The total cost to the employers will be £415 million, and they will have an appropriate deduction from their national insurance contributions to cover that as a group. There may be some companies which will be better off and some which will be worse off; but as a group they will be covered by compensation. The present cost to the national insurance fund is £375 million. The reason why the cost goes up from £375 million to £415 million is because of the additional national insurance and national insurance surcharge payable by employers on paying wages when the employees were otherwise covered by sickness benefit.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, when the cost is criticised, could the Minister say how the sick pay compares with what is paid in Western Germany, Scandinavia and other Western European countries?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: No, my Lords.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that under the proposed scheme the single man will be very much better off, whereas the married man with children will be worse off? Does he feel that such arrangements could be justified?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: It is perfectly true that the single man will benefit on this basis. It is a complicated business because one of the proposals in
1296
the Green Paper was that there should be a premium payable to those with dependent children. This was not well received by employers because it complicates the position, in that they are not now paying wages to people on the basis of whether or not they have children. This way they would be paying differently to different people when they were away sick—people who were getting the same salary in the firm.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, would the Minister consider that the scheming suggestion is absolutely a breach of contract in respect of the people who pay their national insurance stamp and expect to get their benefits from the state? If any insurance company did this, there would be trouble.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I do not think there is a breach of contract. This is sick pay for the first eight weeks, and the recipient will get his money in that way rather than from the national insurance scheme. After that he will be on the national insurance scheme in the ordinary way.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend consider whether, if the Government come forward with a White Paper or a draft scheme, they ought not to exempt entirely firms with 20 or fewer employees? If they cannot be exempted, could the Government consider whether such firms might be entitled to deduct payments made under this scheme from their monthly PAYE and national insurance payments?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, a great many suggestions have come with the representations that we have received, but whether the particular suggestion put forward by my noble friend was included in them, I do not know. However, I will certainly see that his ideas are put forward.

GOVERNMENT STOCK: BANK OF ENGLAND PRACTICE
2.56 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have approved the recent practice of the Bank of England of buying Government stock from and reselling it to those financial institutions who have over-extended their lending facilities.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, this was essentially a technical measure related to the structure of bank balance sheets. A bank which is short of reserve assets would normally acquire them by bidding for them in the market place. This would have driven up interest rates in the money market above the level thought to be appropriate to control the money supply.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very helpful and tutorial Answer, may I ask whether he can help the House a little more? Is it not the case that the Government are attempting to restrict the supply of money? Is it not also the case that excessive bank lending frustrates that policy? Why, then, if some banks have been over-greedy does the Bank of England step in to help them?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the reply that I gave. So far as his supplementary Question is concerned, the money supply is controlled through the rate of interest. The Government do not seek to control the money supply through the reserve asset holdings of the banks, and it would not in fact be possible to do so because the banks could so easily circumvent any such control.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord says that, but is he not also aware, as I have reason to believe he is, that there are more sensible and direct ways of controlling the money base than by the damaging procedure of high interest rates?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord is now opening up a wide area of discussion. The Government published in March a Green Paper on methods of controlling the money supply.
1298
That Green Paper has been the subject of extensive consultations since then. We are not entirely satisfied with the present methods of control and we are anxious to improve them where possible. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in that direction.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, am I right in interpreting the noble Lord's first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as saying that the Government, or the Bank of England or the Treasury were confronted with the choice either of allowing the minimum lending rate to rise further or supplying the additional resources necessary to prevent it from rising further and thereby adding to the money supply?—in other words, that they subordinate their money supply target to their idea of what is a desired interest rate?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, no; this is not a complete or accurate assessment of the situation. Indeed, had these reserve assets not been made available to the banks, the banks would have bid for them in the marketplace and in effect they would have obtained the assets by making deposits available to other people. This in fact, far from restricting the money supply, would have increased it still further.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, it would have raised the rate of interest.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it would have raised the rate of interest in the very short term—not necessarily the minimum lending rate. Once a Government decide what is the appropriate minimum lending rate in order to control the money supply, short-term fluctuations of this kind are undesirable, and the action taken was designed, and properly designed, to avoid such short-term fluctuations.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what he would say to those who believe that a degree of reliance on the minimum lending rate as a tool for controlling the money supply is somewhat out of kilter?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am not entirely certain what point my noble friend is trying to make, but the primary

1299
method of controlling the money supply must always be the rate of interest.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that his statements today have been the best justification for strict Government control of the banking system?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords. I do not think that that follows at all. Indeed, the unhappy experience of the "corset" indicates how difficult it is to impose direct controls and what undesirable effects they tend to have.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, if I may speak again on this matter, the noble Lord is saying that minimum lending rate must always be the main control of the money supply. Is he not aware of the fact that for 30 years in this country, and still in the majority of European countries, the money supply has been controlled not by the short-term rate of interest but by quantitative controls on bank lending?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's analysis of the situation. But, in any event, I would think it more appropriate to try to tackle the problems with which we are now faced, rather than engage in a historical dissertation extending over the last 30 years.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS AND CAPITAL GAINS
3.2 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what special steps they have considered to recoup capital gains expected to be made by recent buyers, including foreign buyers, of Government stocks when the MLR is eventually reduced.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, no such steps have been considered, nor do Her Majesty's Government consider them appropriate. In general, in the case of persons who are resident in this country, capital gains tax is already chargeable in respect of sales within 12 months.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this? If the industrial losses that we all know about, the redundancies and the unemployment are justified by the noble Lord and the Government, in order to create the conditions under which the MLR can be reduced, can he really at the same time justify a situation which brings windfall profits to the money speculators?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is quite wrong to describe the people who subscribe to Government debt, and who, of course, include pension funds and insurance companies, as money speculators. We have to face the facts of the world as they are. We have a public sector borrowing requirement which is very high. It is essential, in the interests of abating and, ultimately, eliminating inflation, that that public sector borrowing requirement should be met by raising Government debt. This can be done only on terms which are acceptable to the people who lend the money.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, while I join in the sympathy for the pension funds, may I ask whether the noble Lord really believes that the £300 million which we understand was contributed during the past week from overseas for Government stocks, was made available for any other reason than the expectation of a capital gain?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the prospect of making a capital gain, particularly on long-dated stocks, is one of the factors taken into account by the people who subscribe for those stocks. If such an expectation did not exist, the Government would need to pay an even higher rate of interest than they do at present.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is it not in any case the fact that when the MLR rose suddenly by such a lot, the holders of gilt-edged—pension funds, trade unions and everybody else—had to suffer an enormous reduction in the capital value of their holdings?
Lord COCKFIELD: Yes, my Lords. It is a very valid point that the prospect of making losses, as well as the prospect of making gains, is one which always exists.

MOTOR-CYCLES: NOISE AND POLLUTION
Lord BARNBY: 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 bring forward implementation of announced intended legislation to mitigate the noise and environmental pollution currently generated by exhausts from unwisely permitted excessively powered motor-cycles.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport made regulations on 6th August which reduce the maximum noise levels permitted for new motor-cycles from 1982. He is considering still more stringent limits for longer term.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer is disappointing? May I ask him to consider a review of what he said in his Answer, as regards the time when further action will be taken? In view of the monstrous power of these large motor-cycles, which is inimical to public safety, can he amplify his reply by saying how many prosecutions of motor-cyclists have occurred in the last period for which statistics are available? Can he also say how many motor-cyclists have been killed and how many members of the public also have been killed in motor-cycle accidents?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, in amplification of my first point, it is hard to make regulations to be enforced any earlier than 1982, because manufacturers themselves have to plan how to make motor-cycles in the future. So far as statistics are concerned, in recent years there have been 11,000 successful prosecutions a year for all types of vehicles for offences concerning noise. During the year 1978, which is the last year for which we have figures available, 1,006 motor-cyclists were killed; in 1977,223 pedestrians were killed in motor-cycle accidents and 2,122 were killed by all types of vehicles.
Earl HOWE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a loud noise from a motor-cycle does not always mean that that motor-cycle is travelling at an excessive speed?
The Earl of AVON: Yes, my Lords; indeed, that is true. Perhaps here one can voice concern about the fact that one of the major difficulties about noise from motor-cycles concerns those who tamper with their silencers.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to say whether there is a survey which shows whether or not this nuisance is due to the power of the vehicle? Also, is it not true that there are many high-powered machines which do not cause nuisance, because they are owned by experienced riders who do not tamper with their machines? Is not the problem in many residential areas due to the lesser-powered machines, whose exhaust systems have been deliberately tampered with and which create a considerable nuisance, in the belief by youthful people that more noise is exciting?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. As I said in my previous reply, it is the tampering with silencers that really causes concern.

BUSINESS
3.9 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat the contents of the Statement that I made to the House yesterday evening. The Committee stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill will be continued at approximately 7 p.m. and completed tonight. I am sure the House would agree that it is desirable that we should be able to complete the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill by this time, or as soon after it as is possible. If, however, it should not prove possible to complete the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill by soon after 7 p.m., it is proposed to continue it tomorrow and, if this should be necessary, I will, of course, inform the House this evening.
As I said yesterday, it has not, I am afraid, been possible to make dinner available tonight, but the Grill Room will be open and refreshments in the form of snacks and sandwiches et cetera will also be available in the two bars. There will be no adjournment for dinner this evening.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I say from this side of the House that we think it is quite possible that if Members will confine themselves to the amendments and not make long Second Reading speeches we can get through in time for us to have our dinner in a reasonable place at a reasonable hour.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for this great co-operation.

BROADCASTING BILL
3.11 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): 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 Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 10 [Making and entertainment of complaints]:
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 18, leave out from ("individual") to end of line 22.
The noble Lord said: If it meets the convenience of the Committee I could move both amendments to Clause 10 standing in my name and Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 together. The effect of the first amendment is to leave out all the words after "individual". We are I dealing here with a Broadcasting Complaints Commission and considering what is the right procedure for it.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow individuals, and only individuals, to initiate what would be the expensive and time-consuming process of what may be called a BCC investigation. Individuals deserve that right because it is individuals who are mostly affected by unethical broadcasting practices, and it is individuals who for the most part cannot afford the crippling cost of bringing a libel action.
1304
If this amendment were to be accepted, then the Government would have to look again at subsection (4)(b) of this provision. Corporations can generally look after themselves. They have the power to protest and the resources to sue. Therefore the effect of that amendment would be to confine the complaints procedure or the initiation of that procedure to individuals.
The effect of Amendment No. 34 would be to delete subsection (3) altogether. Possibly this is the most unsatisfactory provision in the entire Bill. It is very widely drawn. As I look at it I am bound to say that it seems to me to give the right to complain to representatives of the dead, however long dead they may have been—the descendants of Oliver Cromwell or Charles I would have the right to complain—to foreign countries, to criminals who have absconded, to dictators who dare not show their faces in England upon whom perhaps a camera crew and an interviewer have reported, and so on. It would have the most extraordinary consequences.
Let me give one example. If there was a programme on imperialism in Southern Africa, the BBC might find themselves subject to complaints from, say, the Rhodes Trust about the unfair treatment of its founder. One can think of Prime Ministers long dead whose families may make complaints. There was the recent programme on Edward and Mrs. Simpson. Was that unfair in the way it was depicted, or an invasion of privacy? One can imagine endless arguments, with lawyers—doing rather well out of it, I am bound to say—appearing for both sides and poring over the history books for weeks on end.
So far as the clause is drawn, it seems to me that foreign countries can make complaints to the BCC. Why should we establish hostages to fortune in this way? In the end it comes before a complaints commission who have to make a political judgment. Let us take the example of an Arabian country which makes a complaint about a programme such as "Death of a Princess". Does it not involve political value judgments in the end? Why should we give this right of complaint in this way? It seems to me that this subsection is unnecessary and that if the right of complaint is confined to individuals it will be dealing with the

1305
evil at which the provision of this commission is aimed. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: As I have put down an amendment, No. 35, which is closely linked to these two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to that now and also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and then to move Amendment No. 35 formally after Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 have been disposed of.
The purpose of these three amendments standing in my name is to remove the right for complaints to be made on behalf of the dead and to bring the subsection into line with the present law on defamation. I realise that we are dealing here with a complaints commission and not of course with a criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the clause as at present drafted is in my humble view far too sweeping. It goes much further than the present law and even further than the proposals of the Faulks Committee on Defamation. The previous Porter Committee on the Law of Defamation did not recommend any change to the law. As they pointed out—and here I quote—
"Historians and biographers should be free to set out facts as they see them and to make their comment and criticism upon the events which they have chronicled".
Porter goes on to say:
"If those engaged in writing history were compelled, for fear of proceedings for libel, to limit themselves to events of which they could provide proof acceptable to a court of law, records of the past would, we think, be unduly and undesirably curtailed".
The Faulks Committee—or, rather, a majority of them—thought that there was a case for giving limited protection to near relatives for a period of five years beginning with the date of death. We are here dealing with a complaints commission, as I have said, and the powers to be given under the Bill go much further even than this. Not only may a member of the family make a complaint; it need not be just a near relative; the power is given to some other person or body closely connected with the deceased— even to an employer, or to a clerk, or to a society of which he was a member. Here I stress the last words of the subsection: "in any other way".
There is also no time limit at all. Faulks recommended five years. Some
1306
legal authorities who take this point of view would like to see a 10-year period. This is not long enough for others who would like 30 years. I remember that in 1955, some 20 years after the death of T. E. Lawrence—Lawrence of Arabia—a biographer for the first time set out publicly the full facts about his parentage and revealed the real name and identity of his father. At the time there were strong complaints that this information was uncalled for and would cause embarrassment to the family. But surely this is vital information and necessary for any full understanding of Lawrence, his outlook on life and many of his actions. And he surely was, without argument, one of the important figures in the history of the first half of this century. Indeed, recent encyclopaedias are now frank about his parentage, whereas the old editions were evasive.
This matter was also an important part of the study of Lawrence's character in the excellent film which I am sure many of your Lordships will have seen, entitled "Lawrence of Arabia". Under the Bill as at present drafted, there could be complaints 45 years after Lawrence's death about this film if it is shown on television, although not, of course, if it is shown in a cinema. It will be possible to bring complaints about the television portrayal of Lord Byron some 150 years after his death, although not, of course, in a printed biography; and one could even go right back 500 years and complain about what one considers to be the unfair television treatment of Richard III, if he happens to be your favourite king, as be is for some people, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby pointed out so aptly on Second Reading. As for modern history, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it will make the work of historians and biographers (and we now have on television biographies of leading figures) that much more difficult. The same will apply to the making of historical programmes if relatives are still alive.
The very wide provisions of the subsection will also allow foreign Governments—and here I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said—and societies to complain about what they consider to be unfair treatment of deceased historical figures, and representations could be made by the Foreign Office to the commission supporting these, sometimes

1307
for mainly diplomatic reasons. It will be increasingly difficult and inhibiting for writers and producers to adopt their own viewpoint if they fear that any interpretation other than a stricly hagiographical one, will result in their being hauled up before the commission.
It may be argued that the need to protect the susceptibilities of relatives is paramount. In reply to that I should like to quote briefly from the minority report to the Faulks Committee's recommendation—the minority report by Mr. William Kimber and Mr. Michael Rubenstein, with which I heartily agree:
"Public men and women excite hostility as well as admiration and after their death their detractors and enemies may make false allegations. This, however, is a part of the price of fame and their surviving family should, we believe, be prepared to take the rough with the smooth. An unwarranted attack is sure to provoke refutation from the dead person's supporters and in the course of time a framework of truth should emerge from controversy".
I do not think that I can put it any better than that. I hope your Lordships and the Government will be sympathetic to this amendment when we come to discuss it after I have moved it formally.
3.33 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: As I have an amendment within this area it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak to it now. I should like to begin by agreeing with the first amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. To go beyond the individual I think is going further than we need and would create enormous difficulties, because after all somebody in Soviet Russia and somebody in Chile is attacked every day of the week by somebody and we do not want to open up a whole series of political things of this kind; so I think that the limitation to "individual" is satisfactory.
I do not agree with either the noble Lord's Amendment No. 34 or my noble friend's amendment to which he has just spoken. If we cut out subsection (3) we then cut out the element of death. I think there are difficulties here. It is perfectly clear that if you are going to allow any restrictions on talking about the dead there must be a time limit and I have suggested "recently". If people
1308
do not like "recently" I would accept the words "of this generation" or "within ten years", or anything of that kind. There has to be a limit. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that historians should be prevented from doing what I disliked very much and which produced a really horrid picture of the greatest musician who ever lived, as a sort of crawling scatological ninny, as we saw done of Mozart in the play Amadeus; but certainly I am the last person to suggest that such things should be in any way forbidden or that there should be any comeback to this at all, except not going to the play, which one is easily able to do. I came out of the theatre.
There is a great difference in television. What we are asking is not that uncomfortable truths should be forbidden but that perfectly obvious lies with no evidence behind them at all should be forbidden, and I would accept any form of words which has that effect. It is really disgraceful that a situation like the absolute allegation that Winston Churchill murdered General Sikorski should be made into a play on television and one should be able to complain about it. I do not think one should be able to complain about Lawrence's parenthood if someone suddenly says something which is true which was not formerly known. I want to stop people from telling lies. One must not forget that on the television screen it goes to millions of people, that a lot of people are unsuspecting and are apt to think that what is on television is absolutely true. Many of us, of course, are more sophisticated than that, but a lot of people are not. The situation is quite different from writing a book or even an article in a newspaper. So while I hope that we do not cut out subsection (3), I think we should insert the word "recently" after the word "died".
Lord MORRIS: I believe that many of the problems which we have seen arise as a result of the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill, arise because I do not believe that the Government have thought out very carefully the result of entrenching in a statute the terms of reference of the complaints commission. If they were to consider some other vehicle whereby they could entrench the terms of reference this might help to solve some of the many problems which we have already heard will arise as a result of this clause.

1309
Nevertheless, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because I believe, first, in the necessity for the commission and, secondly, that there should be a cause of complaint for the near relatives of a deceased person. Perhaps I may give what I think is a very good example of where people have been seriously damaged, by quoting the case of the late chairman of the Labour Party, Mr. Morgan Phillips. The press had a field day, as indeed did television, some time after he died, to the considerable distress of his widow, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and his family. It was extremely distressing but nothing could be done about it, and I am quite sure that there are many who agree with this view. I would regret any attempt such as is reflected in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to remove from the Bill the spirit of the Faulks Report, which is reflected in the Bill.
Lord SOMERS: I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris. No doubt not long ago many of your Lordships saw on television the film about the late Duke of Windsor. It was a good film and it was well done, but I could not help feeling slightly uncomfortable during the whole of it because of what I imagined would be the feelings of those surviving members of the Royal Family who knew him, if they happened to see the film. That can happen in many cases. There will be survivors who will perhaps feel hurt, or, even if the facts are false, annoyed by what is being done. We should not need to worry about restrictions on the BBC for their various productions if one could feel quite certain that they would use a very good sense of discretion as to what they produced and what they did not. But unfortunately, as we have seen on so many occasions, they do not use that sense of discretion. Therefore I think that this restriction and ability to complain about what they have done is a good thing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned the film, "Death of a Princess". It was a most unwise thing to have done. Perhaps it did not annoy its English viewers, but on the other hand there are, even in our country, those of the Moslem faith who may have found it very insulting. The fact that it estranged us from Saudi Arabia for a considerable time was an extremely bad
1310
thing. Therefore I think that some form of complaints procedure against the BBC as regards what they are doing is essential.
As to the question of being only an individual, what about a group such as the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, who are trying their best to make television everything that it should be? I do not think it is right that it should be limited to an individual. On the whole, I am against all these amendments as they stand at the moment.
Lord GOODMAN: lam very conscious of the warning we had that a protracted debate might endanger our dinner, though noble Lords will probably agree that I am the person who has least to fear from that situation! This is a matter of great constitutional importance. We are tampering and threatening to tamper with something that is one of the prizes of our life in this country—that is, the right to say what one wants to say when one wants to say it, subject to the limitations of the law. This is a most dangerous matter and one that we must view as having very great importance.
May I make a small technical point? I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and one or two others who have put on this clause the interpretation that it will enable someone to seek to rehabilitate Titus Oates or Henry VIII. I believe the interpretation that will be put on this by the courts is that the person who has died must be someone who would have had a complaint had he been alive and who has died prematurely. That is what I believe is the appropriate interpretation of this clause and I imagine that was the intention; perhaps the Government will tell us whether or not that is so.
However, I think there are more important considerations. On the question of libelling the dead, one has to remember that, the man being dead, he cannot give evidence. There is no power in this clause, which I must regrettably say appears to me to be rather carelessly drafted, to subpoena any witness. The only remedy available is the issue of a statement, no doubt rebuking the person who made the false statement and asserting that it is false. That is a very limited power indeed. As a lawyer dealing with libel over many years, I have known occasions when questions of libelling the dead arose, and in almost every case the most savage

1311
libels of the dead that I have encountered have been perpetrated by their relatives. It seems to me that, when one is deciding to bestow this remedy, it is very important to remember who it is who is entitled to make the complaint. There are no means at all of establishing the very complex facts that might arise—except by pure guesswork and conjecture—unless the case is quite self-evident.
From what has already been said we have had an indication of the type of difficulty that could arise. Clearly it would have been nicer, if I may use that very mild word, if a television programme about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had been deferred at least until the lady had died. But the fact remains that remedies are available if people wish to seek them. My feeling is that this debate is of value as indicating the profound danger in the whole of this section. Through preoccupation with other matters, I have not been able previously to engage in debates on the matter, but I should like to give notice that, if I receive sufficient support for my view, it may well be my intention to move on the Report stage to strike out the whole of this provision for the creation of this quite unnecessary commission.
I believe we have not thought the matter out enough. The proposal is obviously inspired by the kindest and most considerate of motives. It is quite horrible to think that a dead person should be reviled, but, carried away by that emotion, we have introduced a piece of legislation which we shall certainly rue. The most complex disputes about fact may well arise here, with the tribunal having absolutely no powers or means to resolve them. For instance, as I understand it, the commission is asked to check any complaint that is preferred and to consider it. It does not appear to have a right summarily to reject a complaint because it is manifestly exotic at a first view. They have no power to subpoena anyone and they have no power to call for documents. They have no power which would enable a court in similar circumstances to arrive at any conclusion, and, in those circumstances, I believe a court would decide that they could not arrive at a conclusion.
I do not intend to prolong this discussion, if only for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may become
1312
apprehensive, but I would urge the Committee to consider whether a piece of legislation like this, which, if I may say so, is so ill-considered, ought really to be introduced. I have no doubt there is a lot in the Bill that is good, but this appears to me to be one area which wants very careful revision and thought.
The only remedy available under this section is that the tribunal, if I may call it that, can issue a statement of a corrective nature. We are dealing with television and it is well-known that the characters producing television programmes are extremely independent and determined people. I do not applaud this in the slightest degree, but is it not very likely that after the issue of a statement correcting the thing the people who have been responsible for it will issue a counter-statement? There is no power here to commit for contempt; there is no power to prevent this happening. In many cases the upshot may well be that the person who has been reviled will be very much worse off. He will be subject to further insults from people who are not totally disciplined. This is no reflection on an industry, but it is one of the sad facts of life. I strongly support all these amendments in so far as I regard as meritorious any amendment that removes any portion of this section. I strongly urge that the Government should reconsider, certainly on the question of Section 3 and this entire complaints procedure. I hope we may have an opportunity of debating that more fully at Report stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I address myself to the first amendment? It seems to me that the point made is a good one. Apparently what these amendments are trying to do—I commend it—is to give an opportunity for a falsehood or a false impression to be corrected. It does not matter whether the falsehood or the false impression is made deliberately or inadvertently. What is required is that it should be corrected. No doubt the correction will be taken up not only on the radio and television but in the press as well. It is almost certain to be given pretty wide coverage.
It is important to see that there is no question of any money-grubbing court proceedings here. It is only a question of establishing the truth and vindicating the truth where something has gone wrong.

1313
I think it is particularly important, because this is one of the great causes of complaint, that separate statements made in television, true by themselves, are sometimes so linked as to create a totally false impression. That is also something that should be corrected, and I do not see why it should not be corrected for corporations and institutions, and all the rest as well as individuals. Could my noble friend consider the following; a mental hospital, a tourist agency, a school, a football team. In those cases why should not an individual and also a team, or whatever the group might be, bring a complaint and have the truth established.
Lord WIGODER: May I make one observation? In the course of considering subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 10 we are perhaps to some extent overlooking subsection (4), which appears to me specifically to give the commission power not to entertain any complaint if they think it is frivolous, and an even greater absolute discretion, under the last three lines of the subsection at the top of page 10, not to entertain a complaint
"if it appears to them for any … reason inappropriate for them to entertain … the complaint".
I think it might be that, if the commission were to act with robust commonsense, many of the difficulties foreseen in all parts of your Lordships' House would simply not arise.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I venture to take the view that it is right to be able to discourage people from telling defamatory lies about somebody who has just died. It does not seem to me to be a very dangerously unconstitutional principle to say so. I am bound to say that I am in favour of the position taken by my noble friend. The Faulks Report considered this matter very effectively, in my submission, and they say, first of all as to the time factor:
"Records of his past will not be unduly and undesirably curtailed if for a few years after a man's death historians and biographers are limited to saying what they can prove to be true".
A phrase instead of "recently" might be introduced in the Bill, to substitute "within a short time" or some similar expression, if there is anxiety that the word "recently" is capable of too wide definition, or alternatively the Faulks suggestion of
1314
five or three years. So my noble friend who was worried about the reputation of, Richard II was it…?
Lord STRABOLGI: Richard III.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I am sorry; I erred in my recollection of the two kings. My noble friend need not be unduly worried if that kind of language is introduced into the Bill. I really do submit that, as indeed the Faulks Report says, under the law as it now stands you cannot prevent any malignant or malicious person from publishing a quite atrocious libel upon possibly a very distinguished man who has just died. I think this is a serious fault and flaw in our law, and I hope in due course when we get down to dealing with the Faulks Report we shall remedy the position. As the Faulks Report says:
"Where publications contain false accusations against dead men they constitute a highly objectionable method of profiteering out of his death…".
It is only adverse and defamatory comments upon the dead that seem to sell or receive publicity. The good about men may well in some minds live after them, but not in the minds of contributors to publications. As the report says:
"Where publications contain false accusations against dead men they constitute a highly objectionable method of profiteering out of his death, and in our opinion while grief is fresh and for rather longer such accusations should be actionable ".
This procedure which is proposed in the Bill is not a procedure which would start with a series of money seeking activities like, alas, some libel actions have the quality of being. There is no remedy in grabbing money or hoping to gain money from the procedure. The publicity and effect of libel on the dead on television is very great, possibly wider than that of even the most widely read newspaper. A sensible body of the kind which I assume would be set up would be able to form a judgment on the kind of issues which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did mention, and could be relied upon to give a fair adjudication. In my submission, this proposed discipline that would be imposed would be a healthy discipline and would indeed be helpful to our public life.
Lord GOODMAN: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder

1315
whether I might ask him, as one of our greatest living judges, to explain how it is going to be possible to resolve a disputed issue of fact. Most libel actions are in connection with a highly disputed issue of fact. How would this commission be able to deal with it with the powers which it now has?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I would hope that when the issue arose the parties and witnesses interested would be willing to come forward. That is how the matter would have to be dealt with; to call such evidence as would become available. I cannot imagine that there will be a great flood of complaints under this head, but I should have thought an experienced tribunal ought to be able to cope, even within the limits the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I just ask the noble and learned Lord this? Would he not agree that the broadcasting authorities are always anxious to have the truth established? It is not the authorities who are guilty of any shortcomings, if I may put it in that way, in this connection; it is the authors of the programmes themselves who have had the opportunity to prepare the programmes and ought to have checked all the facts. Would the noble and learned Lord not agree, therefore, that when a complaint is made the authorities themselves are only too anxious to rectify them, but they will not be so willing to do so unless a complaint is made and unless they themselves think the matter of considerable importance.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, which seems to support the position of my noble friends and myself.
Lord WILLIS: I hesitate, and I know it is at my peril, to go against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I think he ought to be a little consistent in his attitude. I remember when the noble and learned Lord sat on the Woolsack and once or twice we raised questions of amending the law because there was some fault in it. He said, "We must wait for a proper review of the entire law and then it will all be put right". Now he is standing up and proposing that we should take one small area and impose
1316
upon it a commission. This would create, as he well knows, dual or even treble standards, because books and theatre and films are not included in this. So he is proposing to amend the law, which he admits has a great flaw in it, before there has been a proper review and proper discussion. That seems to me to be a very illogical and rather bad way to approach the question. If, as the noble and learned Lord says, the law is at fault, it ought to be discussed and amended properly and we ought not to take just television and take this opportunity to single out television as being something different.
Nor can I accept the rather patrician and élitist view taken by my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who says it is all right for the intelligent reader of books, it is all right for the marvellous intelligent people who go to movies, it is all right for everything else, but not for the rag-tag and bobtail, the ad-mass who watch television. I happen to have a higher opinion of people who watch television than apparently does my noble friend.
I support very strongly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi for several reasons. I have mentioned dual standards. It seems to me absolute nonsense that we should single out television. Can I also speak as a practitioner in what I am proud to say has become the art of television?
What noble Lords ought to remember—and you have no way of knowing this because most of the people in this House are not writers for television or producers for television—is that what you are proposing with this particular clause and this subsection is what I can only describe as a kind of prenatal censorship, because I can tell you exactly what will happen. You will never have programmes like "Suez" again. You will never have programmes like "Churchill and the Generals" again, because the broadcasting authorities will be terrified of what will happen as a result of this complaints commission. You will never be able to have some of the most distinguished writers in the business writing biographical plays about recently dead people, or people who have died in the last 50 years, because the broadcasting authorities will not be prepared to spend the hundreds of thousands of pounds that

1317
it is necessary to spend on these prestige projects. They will not do it. They will not take that risk. So you are imposing from the very beginning a kind of prenatal censorship. These things will not come to fruition.
This is a most dangerous and bad subsection of this Bill. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said about the entire setting up of the complaints commission, but that is another matter. Certainly on this particular clause I beg the Committee—for the sake of the art of television, for the sake of having an intelligent and probing television and not just the kind of "watermelon" television that you would have if some people had their way—to support these amendments.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I entirely disagree with my noble friend. Television is not the same as literature. It is not the same as history. It is a different medium and it really has a very free hand. My noble friend said the "Suez" film was very good. Was it so good throughout? Was it so accurate? Did it really give an absolutely accurate historical picture of what went on? It did not.
Lord WILLIS: Of course it did not. Of course it was the view of a writer and a group of producers who put forward a view. Had the noble Baroness done it, would it have been any better? Would it not have been biased? But at least we have to have programmes of this kind. If we do not, we shall have "jellyfish" television, which is worth nothing.
Baroness GAITSKELL: We do not have just that kind of picture. We have to have something that is more accurate, more true. We do not have it because the people who take part in television sometimes are not so good, not so accurate, not so truthful; they are in many respects very superficial when they do a programme. The recent programme about my own husband which was put on television could have been torn to pieces, not because it was beastly, not because it was unpleasant particularly. It was just not accurate enough, it was not historical enough. It was somebody's view. And one could do nothing about it. I am not bitter about it. I simply said it was not historical. I was
1318
told, "Oh, that is due to some other person; it had nothing to do with the man who produced the programme." Well, is that right? I do not think it is. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, either; but I do agree with my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who spoke from the Front Bench.
Lord BELSTEAD: I wonder whether I might intervene at this moment to give the view of the Government. I was a little disturbed when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that he felt that the whole of Part III—because it was to the whole of Part III that the noble Lord was directing his remarks—was misconceived and he would seek to extract the whole of Part III when we came to the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Lord in his interesting remarks did not refer to the fact that to have a complaints commission of this kind was a recommendation from the Annan Committee and, of course, a recommendation from the previous Government, which would in certain respects have gone possibly a little further than Part III goes at the moment. But without seeking unduly to widen the debate, I was intrigued that the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so in his absence, was under the impression that in some way Part III would not allow witnesses to appear or evidence to be given. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, dealt very well with the question of the appearance of personages.
So far as the appearance of actual broadcast material goes, which is what we are talking about, I would simply say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for all his great gifts, has simply not read Clause 11 and I would, in his absence, invite him to do that before we reach the report stage of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Morris, if I may pick up one other disparate point, gave it as his view that it was not right to entrench in statute a commission of this kind. All I can say is that, if my memory serves me aright, the parliamentary commissioner for administration is entrenched in statute. He operates in an administrative way. I think the PCA is a personage which Parliament believes it is right to have operating in this country. The first—
Lord MORRIS: I ask the noble Lord to accept my apologies for intervening,

1319
but the Press Council is a voluntary body which, I think, was formed in the mid-forties and, so far as I know, it is almost a direct parallel to this particular complaints commission. I am led to believe that it does a very good job indeed.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not disagree with my noble friend in any way in what he says there, but I think it is reasonable to say that in tandem with the Press Council we also have other bodies entrenched in statute. I gave an example of the PCA, and I believe that works well also.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I merely seek to indicate that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is back now.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has rejoined us. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I delivered myself of a remark or two in general disagreement with the noble Lord, and it will be possible for us to return to the more general disagreement on the whole of Part III on the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord GOODMAN: I would regard it as highly courteous.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Going to the first of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, which refers to the removal of organisations from the complaints procedure, I think I would simply reiterate what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. Consider a mental hospital, or a tourist agency, a school, or a football team. Why should they not be able to make a complaint if they felt that they came within the scope of this part of the Bill? The Bill was purposely drawn to provide that a complaint should lie where a programme might be held to have treated an individual or an organisation unfairly.
Having said that, may I deal with the effect of the noble Lord's first amendment—and I am not trying simply to nit-pick by saying this, because there is really something fairly fundamental which is wrong with the amendment. Amendment No. 33, by removing references to bodies of persons, whether incorporated or not, simply means that an individual or individuals could make the complaint. They
1320
could, of course, do so on behalf of bodies corporate or unincorporate, or in their own right as being members of those bodies and hence having a direct interest in the way in which the body was treated in a particular programme; and for that reason I do not think that the amendment really achieves the purpose for which it sets out.
The amendment also removes the requirement in the remainder of Clause 10(2) that the commission should only entertain complaints by a person affected or someone authorised by him. This would widen the remit of the commission so that it could, in theory, entertain complaints about the way in which a person was treated in a programme, the complaint being made by someone wholly unconnected with him. Admittedly, Clause 10(6) would give the commission discretion not to entertain such complaints, but it is surely better to have it on the face of the Bill that only the person affected or someone authorised by him or, where he has died, somebody on his behalf, can have a complaint entertained by the commission. I put it to the Committee that surely we must preserve the individual's or the company's right not only to make a complaint, but also not to make a complaint. I fear that one of the effects of the noble Lord's amendment would be to remove the latter right.
The noble Lord in his Amendment No. 34, to which, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was also speaking so far as his Amendment No. 35 was concerned, would exclude complaints on behalf of dead or incapacitated people. We have heard some very interesting speeches about that this afternoon, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. Such a complaint might be made by the widow of a man whose reputation had suffered as a result of alleged unfair treatment in a programme and who has strong interest in seeing that the record is put straight. The man concerned might have taken part in a programme and then died since the programme was broadcast, or it might have been made after his death. If Amendment No. 34 by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, were accepted, the commission would be unable to entertain any of those complaints and I must say that I do not think that that would be right. I do not think that it would be right to

1321
prevent a complaint being made on behalf of a living person who has, for some reason, been unable to put forward his own case, for instance, because of an incapacitating illness.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 34 would also have that effect by cutting out at page 9, line 24, the words:
"or is for any other reason".
I do not think that that would be fair. I do not see how one could defend the case for withholding the right to remedies offered by the commission from those who are simply unable, for some reason, to speak for themselves. I do not think that that would be a tenable policy.
The noble Lord and others of your Lordships referred to the problem, as it was seen, of making complaints on behalf of people who have been dead for centuries, and mention was made particularly of Oliver Cromwell and Richard III. But, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, the commission can refuse to consider frivolous complaints. There is also the provision—and it is in subsection (3), which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would cut out of the Bill—that a person must be closely connected with the complainant.
Finally I come to the other amendment which was spoken to, that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in which he would insert the word "recently" after "died". Here my difference of opinion—and I am sorry to say that I do have one with the amendment— is of degree and not as regards its merits. I think that what the noble Lord said was cogent, but the questions which one needs to consider are whether it is necessary to spell out what the noble Lord is seeking to spell out in the Bill, and, more important, whether it is desirable to do so in order to achieve an effect which I think we all regard as sensible.
The provisions of the Bill not only give the commission considerable discretion as to the complaints which it entertains, but they place upon the commission a duty, as I have said, not to consider frivolous complaints. Bearing in mind that I think that the whole Committee hopes that there will be distinguished and, incidentally, people knowledgeable about the media on the complaints commission, it seems to me reasonable that we should
1322
be able to rely on them to carry out their duties in a sensible manner; and that applies to complaints where the persons affected have died, as it does to other complainants.
When, in addition to that, one bears in mind what I sought to say just now; namely, that the person making the complaint must have a reasonably close connection with the person about whom they are making the complaint—I think that this will cut out the need to insert the word "recently". On those grounds I would prefer not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
There is one further reason which I find even more persuasive, and that is that I really do not know how one would define "recently". Why, for example, should the widow or widower of someone who died, say, just over a year before a broadcast, be precluded from having his or her complaint about the treatment of his or her husband or wife considered, whereas the widow or widower of someone who had died just under a year before the broadcast, would be permitted to complain? I venture to suggest that these amendments, even including the final one, raise more problems than they would solve and, on those grounds, I would ask your Lordships not to agree to the amendment which is being moved or the amendments which have been spoken to.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I should like to correct perhaps a misconception that might have arisen from my intervention. I did not mean that the programme on my husband was defamatory, libellous, or any such thing. The reason why I do not agree with either my noble friend Lord Willis or my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is simply that television, as a medium, is so free that one does not have to libel; one does not have even to tell lies. One can do it without any of those things because we have absolutely no control, once a programme is on the air, over what it will be like.
Lord GOODMAN: Before the noble Lord sits down could he deal with one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis? How would he justify providing a remedy for one medium alone, when there is no remedy as regards literature, films, the theatre or any other medium? How would he justify that?
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that the answer is quite easy. We are, of course, talking, if I may remind the Committee— and I almost forget myself, so wide have we ranged—about Clause 10 and, therefore, we have already passed Clause 9. Thus, it is not unreasonable for me to say to the Committee that in Clause 9, to which the Committee has already agreed, there are the terms of reference which give the scope of the functions of the commission. Those are more or less exactly in line with the terms of reference of the scope of the function of the BBC's Complaints Commission. We felt that it was right to make this statutory and that, I believe, is the right road to go down.
Lord GOODMAN: We are dealing with the question of the right to protect the reputation of the dead—no such right exists in any other medium. That is the matter that we are discussing at this moment. It does not concern the previous discussions: it is the question of whether a right should be given to relatives and other people to seek to vindicate the reputation of a dead man. Why should that exist in relation to television and to nothing else?
Lord BELSTEAD: For the reason which I have given. I think that these rights are self-evident and if there are loopholes in other parts of the law I hope that they will be rectified as a result of this Bill.
Lord STRABOLGI: Perhaps the Minister will say how the truth of these complaints will be established if the person complained about is not there, but is dead?
Lord BELSTEAD: That also, even for me, is quite an easy question to answer because the whole function of the commission was to do with what is broadcast. If I may venture to look forward in the Bill, which I am not supposed to do but which, in his absence, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to do, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will find that there are ample powers for the commission to require that it can see what was actually broadcast. As a result of that, and as a result of evidence which will be given by people who come to the hearings of the commission, it will finally make up its mind.
Lord ARDWICK: As a journalist I am as concerned to defend the freedom of broadcasting as I am the freedom of the press. Nevertheless, I sympathise a great deal with my noble friends on the Front Bench. Surely there is no problem when the commission is dealing with an inadvertent error; there should be no problem when it is merely a controversial view of recent historical facts. A real problem arises when you have malice, malicious invention and malicious distortion; when you have novels purporting to be biographies and which present a malicious view of the anti-hero; where you have fiction posing as documentaries. These are the new problems and they are problems which affect the novel. But they also very much affect television.
Of course, in a way it is wrong to impose a discipline upon one medium only. Nevertheless, one must have regard to the fact—without any view of the viewers—that television is the most powerful medium and has a colossal effect. Therefore, perhaps special protection should be given against this.
Lord HOOSON: As I said when I introduced my first amendment to Part III of the Bill, I consider that this part of the Bill has been ill-considered by the Government, by the other place and by this House. I said when I introduced my first amendment that my series of amendments was calculated to show and to demonstrate to the Committee how little considered this part of the Bill had been.
I do not intend to press these two amendments standing in my name to a Division, but the reply made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has in no way alleviated my fears about this part of the Bill. I very much agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Willis, that the whole of this part of the Bill needs much more mature consideration than it has so far been given.
I should like to illustrate the point to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The reason that I wish to limit the complaint to individuals is that, if a football team or a mental hospital is unjustly treated in a programme, any individual within the football team or within the hospital can bring a complaint and, therefore, the whole matter can be considered. But, if the noble Lord looks at Part III of the Bill as a whole and at how widely some of

1325
these subsections are drawn, does he not appreciate that there may be permanent pressure groups and embassies financing perpetual complaints to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission? Unless the Government very carefully reconsider the whole of this part of the Bill, it is possible that the Government could have created a monster which will not be a part-time commission, but a full-time commission, with all kinds of pressure groups financing complaints, and with expensive leading council appearing before it with incessant complaints. Just imagine what this would do to the whole of the television industry.
Lord BELSTEAD: Perhaps I may just make one remark. Obviously, what has been said today will be looked at extremely carefully in the department of my right honourable friend because it is quite right that this Committee should look very carefully at Part III of the Bill. As a non-lawyer, I would not in any way want the impression to be gained that I have not tried to listen very carefully to what has been said. But I would add that I find myself in a slightly difficult position.
In winding up the debate on these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said that he can see a flood of complaints, incessant complaints—almost an industry of complaint-making. Yet at the beginning of the debate, it was the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who told us that it would be almost impossible to make a complaint because you would not be able to get a witness to appear before the complaints commission.
Lord GOODMAN: I said no such thing. I said that if many complaints are made it would create a situation of enormous difficulty to adjudicate on them, which is quite different.
Lord BELSTEAD: I apologise if I misheard; I shall re-read what the noble Lord said. Perhaps I can take it that I misdirected myself in that end, therefore, I must think only of the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Therefore, in looking again to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson and without trying to call the noble Lord, Lord Goodman to my aid, may I say that one must look at the text of the Bill? I believe that the noble Lord is mistaken in his apprehensions, because there is a provision firmly
1326
in the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has drawn our attention to it—that the complaints commission can decide that complaints are frivolous or that those making the complaints are not closely connected with those about whose treatment they are complaining.
Lord HOOSON: Perhaps I may deal with the last point with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not deal. Let us suppose that a foreign Government complains about a programme. It is not libellous, otherwise it would be excluded by subsection (4)(d). Let us suppose that they complain that it is generally unfair and unjust to their ruler, their country, or an individual in it, and that the embassy finances the complaint. The complaints commission would be faced with a tremenously difficult political judgment as to what to do about it. The noble Lord has not even answered that point.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that it would be very strange on the face of it if a body which had a function of the kind that the Annan Commission, the previous Government and the present Government think in general terms is the right way to go, turned away well-founded complaints simply on the grounds of nationality. It is perfectly true that complaints could be made across national boundaries, but there will still be the rules which are to be found in Part III to ensure that those complaints are not frivolous and that the people making the complaint fall within the scope to which I referred earlier, which is to be found in Clause 10(3).
Lord BERNSTEIN: I do not know whether I should or need not declare my interest in television, but the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said something which is very important. Nothing is worse for creative people—and we need creative people of a high order in television in this country—than censorship over their shoulders. They will think that this is some kind of censorship. One can ridicule the different arguments that have been put forward. If I wanted to make a programme about Asquith and Lloyd George and about how they were going to fill this House with Peers, I would have leading the Liberals the Lord Carrington of the day, because he was a Liberal Leader in this House. He was a third j or fourth cousin or uncle of our present

1327
Lord. What would the present Lord Carrington do? Would he have a right to go forward and say that I made his uncle, or great-uncle, or whoever it was, look rather ridiculous?
A man is a rounded person; a woman is a rounded person. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, did not like what she saw of her husband when he was put on the fiat screen in black and white or colour, and that I can understand. One only has to read our history by Trevor-Roper to realise how people have different views about others, whether it is about the "donkeys" or about what happened at Suez.
This is hopeless. We are making ourselves seem extremely old-fashioned by having this clause in the Bill. Noble Lords perhaps already know that there are some thousands of tape recording sets, and soon programmes and discs will be available for anything one wants to see, whether it be "Richard III", the story about Suez, or what is happening in the Gulf war. Under the Bill we cannot stop those being distributed, nor can we stop people buying or renting these sets up and down the country. Much of this is completely out of date. I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I hope that it goes to a Division. In the light of what has been said today, I hope that the Government will consider taking subsection (3) out of the Bill, and rewriting it.
Lord HANKEY: I support the clause as it stands, and I think it is right that there should be a complaints procedure. It is extremely desirable that television companies and authorities should be made responsible. "Death of a Princess" should be a lesson to all of us. It was a disgraceful distortion; it gave enormous offence. Can noble Lords be surprised that the Saudi Arabians have given contracts for building all sorts of things that we would dearly have loved to supply to another power? I think that there are great dangers in this.
Please do not forget that we are entering a period which is likely to be one of considerable international tension. For instance, the Franco-Prussian War developed as the result of a fake telegram arranged by Bismarck to be sent to Louis Napoleon, who virtually began the
1328
war on that account. There could be occasions in the future when a television programme, which can carry an enormous emotive effect—I agree with what many noble Lords have said today, on that— could be very dangerous to the national interest.
As regards "Death of a Princess", I am sorry the Foreign Office did not stop it. The Government have to stand up for the public interest—
Lord WILLIS: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord HANKEY: Not for the moment. I will let the noble Lord talk when I finish, if I may. The Foreign Office ought to have stopped it. The Government ought to stand up for the public interest and, if they do not, I do not know who can. I am not in favour of censorship. I know the difficulty of what I have said, but I think that it is desirable to make these authorities and these producers responsible. They ought to know better than to act as some of them have done.
Lord WILLIS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I thank him for his courtesy in giving way? He mentioned the "Death of a Princess" and he stated—I hope he meant it—that it was his view that it was a gross distortion. Dull it may have been, but you cannot say it was a distortion without consulting the writer, who I think tried to do a very honest job. Had you had a similar film about the Soviet Union, or about China, or about some country that we were not heavily dependent upon for oil, there would not have been the same outcry.
Lord HOOSON: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
4.22 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 23, leave out ("has died or").
The noble Lord said: I now beg to move Amendment No. 35 standing in my name. I have not very much more to say, except that I am very grateful for the support that I have received from all

1329
sides of the Committee. I have the highest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but I think that the defence that he has made of this very sweeping clause has not convinced me. My noble friend Lord Donaldson proposed that we should insert the word, "recently". What is recently? It is difficult to prove. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones favoured five years as Faulks did; other authorities would like longer, but the clause has no time limit at all. It is difficult to establish truth once the person complained about has died, so surely death should be the point to which complaints can be made. Once you start getting away from this you run into great difficulties.
Then there is the question of the susceptibilities of close relatives. As the dissenting report on the Faulks Commission said so eloquently, there are advantages and disadvantages in being a close relative to a well-known person—and here I speak from personal experience— and really one has to take the rough with the smooth. The most important reason why we must take out these words is that the clause as at present drafted goes far beyond the present law on defamation. It is a further inroad on the freedom of writers and other producers to produce programmes in an objective and sincere way. It is something that we must preserve, and we must keep television and the complaints commission in line with the courts and with the present law of defamation. Any further step away from that is a step away from freedom. I would ask your Lordships to come to a decision on this, and I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 36.
Lord GARDINER: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has treated somewhat cavalierly the objections which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. For hundreds of years we have had a law of defamation which, very properly, has been changed from time to time to meet objections or changing circumstances. It applies to all literature, art, the drama, and so on. We have never yet thought it right to extend this
1330
to the relatives of somebody who is dead, but only to the person himself.
To say rather airily, "Oh, well, if it is right in this Bill the other things could be changed too" is to treat our existing law in a somewhat cavalier fashion. What does "if a man is unable to bring an action himself" mean? If he is alive, anybody can get a solicitor to act for him. I cannot call to mind the circumstances in which somebody has a right of action but is unable to bring it, unless there is some statutory period of limitation, or something of that sort. He can always act by other people.
To substitute for it a provision regarding relatives, if the death has been recent, will simply invite a collection of dissenting opinions. "Recent" is as vague a word as one can imagine. With great respect to Lord Donaldson's form of words does not "recently" inevitably mean that one judge will think that that means up to three months, another may think it means up to a year, and there will be differences of opinion, which cannot be right. My feeling at the end of this debate is that this part of the Bill has not been properly thought through yet by either House of Parliament.
Lord BELSTEAD: I would not like the Committee to think that I had been cavalier in the way I had listened to the quite lengthy debate we have had so far. Indeed, I was at pains a little earlier to say that if I was giving that impression that that was indeed not the case. I think that the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to me is good and that the Government should look very carefully at what has been said today without any commitment.
Speaking as a layman and not a lawyer, I find myself a little perplexed by one of the arguments which has been put to me. That is that because the law of defamation stops with death therefore the proceedings of the Commission should do so too. If one looks at Clause 10 one finds that the statute in draft, as it is at the moment for your Lordships' House to consider whether we are going to agree to it or not, is at great pains to show that if someone either has, or had, a remedy by way of proceeding in the courts of law in the United Kingdom they shall not appear before the complaints commission. By extension of that argument I am saying that the

1331
commission is not supposed to be a court of law. It is not supposed to be a court of law in the way it conducts its proceedings and in the way it appears at all to the world in general.
Speaking, I admit, as a non-lawyer— and I take the noble Lord's chiding that obviously I do not understand as well as I should do the effects that maybe this will have on the rest of the law, and this is perhaps what we ought to look at carefully—I must say that with that proviso I do not see why the ability of the commission to consider complaints of people who have died should therefore cause the trouble which is being suggested.
Lord MORRIS: Would my noble friend consider one point in this context? He quite rightly says that the complaints commission should in no way be seen to be a court of law. However, within the Bill as it is now drafted—and this is yet another example of the uncareful thinking in the whole of this part of the Bill in my view—the commission will have a sanction publicly to pillory a programmer—forgive the alliteration—and also the satisfaction for the complainant will most probably be an apology and a handshake. Notwithstanding that, there is a sanction there, there is a power to bring pressure to bear. This is a point that has been made by various noble Lords all around the Committee. We are hitting on something of great importance. I must come back to the point that there should be careful consideration as to whether the terms of reference of this complaints commission should be dignified in a statute or whether you should go outside a statute and handle it in another way. I am afraid that I am not competent to suggest what other way that should be.
Lord STRABOLGI: As I indicated to your Lordships I should like to press this amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Lord Derwent): The Question is that Amendment No. 35 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say Content, to the Contrary, Not-Content. (Pause.) The Not-Contents have it.
Lord STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord put the Question again?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Nobody said "Content". It is too late. Amendment No. 36.
Lord STRABOLGI: With respect, you must put the Question again, Lord Chairman. I am trying to be a Teller as well.
Lord BESWICK: Would it not be better if, when the Question is put, the Committee were rather more seemly than it was on that occasion?
Earl FERRERS: Is it not the convention that somebody is always supposed to say "Content" or "Not-Content"? I do not have any particular part to play in this, but I should have thought that the Lord Chairman put the Question and nobody in fact said "Content" where as some noble Lords said "Not-Content".
Lord BESWICK: Certainly it was the case that the noble Lord Chairman put the Question, but nobody could hear, such was the row in the Chamber, and I am suggestion that the behaviour is rather better in future.
Lord STRABOLGI: I must apologise to the Committee. I did not hear the Lord Chairman put the Question and I think that as so many noble Lords have come in for a Division, we should perhaps come to a decision and I should be grateful, if your Lordships agree, if the Lord Chairman would put the Question again.
Earl FERRERS: I should have thought it was entirely a matter for the Committee. The Lord Chairman was doing his best to put the Question and if people answer or do not answer that is of course up to the Committee. Having said that, I should have thought that as noble Lords are here, and if it were the view of the Committee that the Question be put again, that would meet with the approval of your Lordships.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, naturally.
Several noble Lords: Put the Question again.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 106.

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Goodman, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Balogh, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L.

Banks, L.

Granville of Eve, L.

Porritt, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Jeger, B.

Strauss, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Wall, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Maelor, L.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Winstanley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Middleton, L.

Adrian, L.

Freyberg, L.

Mills, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Gage, V.

Morris, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Alport, L.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Perth, E.

Balerno, L.

Radnor, E.

Belslead, L.

Halifax, E.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Halsbury, E.

Renton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hankey, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bolton, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hillingdon, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selsdon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shepherd, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilchester, F.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

David, B.

Lothian, M.

Swansea, L.

De Freyne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Swinfen, L.

De La Warr, E.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Derwent, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Underhill, L.

Digby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ferrers, E.

Marley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Fortescue, E.

Melville, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 23, after ("died") insert ("recently").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment, although I was not entirely satisfied with what the noble
1334
Lord had to say earlier. Since, whatever else one may think, it is perfectly obvious that it is quite wrong that the right of complaint should apply to people who have been dead for a long time, something further should be put in. The noble Lord said that he did not like the word "recently" in this regard, but I would ask that on Report he inserts some qualification. On the understanding that he will look at this, without of course making an absolute promise, I shall not move the amendment.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Commission shall not entertain a complaint unless it has first been raised in writing with the responsible broadcasting authority within 30 days of the transmission to which the complaint refers, and unless it is accompanied by a copy of the authority's response (or a sworn statement that the authority has made no response within 21 days of the lodging of the complaint) and by a statement of the grounds upon which the complainant is satisfied with the authority's explanation.").
The noble Lord said: In reply to the previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the Annan Committee had recommended the complaints commission. The committee recommended a complaints commission but, with respect, not this one. The first matter to which I want to draw attention concerns a typographical error in the amendment as printed. In the last line the word should be "dissatisfied", not "satisfied".
The purpose of the amendment is to restore to the BCC the role that the Annan Committee conceived for it; that is, a court of last resort, which would sit only on cases which have been mishandled by the broadcasters themselves. Here I should like to quote the Annan Report:
"A complainant should first put his complaint to the broadcasting authority responsible. Only if he is dissatisfied with the results could the complaint be referred to the commission ",
Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will appreciate that the commission as conceived by the Government is different from that recommended by the Annan Report.
My amendment seeks to give effect to the Annan Committee's view. Complaints in the first instance are for the broadcasting authorities to investigate and answer, and to do so promptly. My amendment would require them to give an answer within 21 days of receiving the complaint, and it would have to be a satisfactory response. If the complainant is still dissatisfied, then he or she would be able to enlist the heavy artillery (if I may use the term) of the BCC. That would make the BCC a real watchdog for public accountability, a tribunal that really says to the authorities, "Deal promptly and properly with justified complaints, or face our wrath".
As the Bill is at present drafted the Broadcasting Complaints Commission becomes the first stop for any complainant, not the last one. There is no provision at all in the Bill for any sort of conciliation or negotiation between the parties before a full investigation is mounted. Of course the complaints commission has a discretion to refuse the complaint, but otherwise the proper procedure has to be followed.
Those of your Lordships who are lawyers will know the value of the cooling-off period—much debated in recent years in regard to different legislation—the value of allowing parties the opportunity for negotiation, conciliation, explaining one another's position, and taking such action as is thought to be desirable, to take the steam out of the complaint. Surely that is what we should be encouraging for responsible broadcasting authorities. Yet the Bill gives the broadcasting authorities no role, except that of the defendants. Complaints are taken direct to the BCC, with its staff and investigators and officials, its cumbersome machinery calling for transcripts, correspondence, written statements, its procedure of secret hearings, and so forth. How much better that the parties should be encouraged to reach an agreement before this brand new Quango steps in and raises the temperature.
I want to make my position clear. In my view the victims of those broadcasters who are grossly unfair, or who unjustifiably invade personal privacy, should complain to the authority responsible, and the authority should heed justified complaints and provide appropriate redress. If the broadcasting authority does not, and only if it does not, then the victim must be able to call in the BCC for help, for a second opinion.
Therefore the role of the complaints commission as I see it would be to judge, not the television and radio programmes, but the sufficiency of the broadcasting authority's response to complaints about television and radio programmes. Let it be a watchdog for the public, barking at arrogant executives, but not frightening away creative programme makers. I am not an authority on television—on Second Reading I declared a potential interest, in that I have been invited to be the chairman of a company contending for one of the franchises—but I greatly heeded the

1337
words of someone who is an expert in television, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, when he referred to the procedures, which seem to accord with the information that I have received from other sources. What actually would happen is that the broadcasting company, or the BBC, would have, as it were, pre-natal censorship, and that is what is likely to happen under the present procedure.
If this amendment, or something like it, is not accepted, then in reality complainants will receive a very much worse deal, and the procedure will be much more cumbersome. I consider that the whole concept of the complaints commission as laid out in the Bill is wrong. The Government would be very wise to study again the Annan Report and to go back to what it recommended, and this is what the amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: As with most things that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, says, I believe that his amendment and his argument supporting it is nothing other than eminently sensible, and I hope that my noble friend will give it the attention that it deserves.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: In our last discussion I asked the noble Lord whether in fact the existing complaints commissions were to be maintained. I warned him that this amendment was coming up and that an answer would be required by then; no doubt we shall have it from him. I wish in one sentence to say that I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, and fully support the amendment.
Did the noble Lord not hear what I said? In our last discussion I said that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was going to move this amendment and that before that happened we should like to know what was the policy of the Government about keeping, or allowing to be kept, the complaints commissions which exist at the moment.
Lord HILL of LUTON: In replying to the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that this complaints commission was broadly on the lines of the existing non-statutory complaints commission, which was founded by the BBC; indeed it was during my chairmanship that that was done. The point I want to
1338
make is that what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, proposes, is precisely the existing situation. It works well. It has the effect—if I may be careful in my choice of words—of stimulating the BBC promptly and satisfactorily to reply, bearing in mind the possibility of the case going to the complaints commission.
Secondly, I wish to refer to a practical point. There is no experience to go on, but my guess is that if in fact a potential complainant can go direct to the commission, without seeking an explanation or a reply from the corporation, a massive amount of work will go in the way of the commission, much of it trivial and time-wasting.
I think that, as was the case under the voluntary scheme, the corporation has the right to know of the complaint and to be given the opportunity of settling and satisfying it without the commission being involved at all.
Lord HUNT: I should like to support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, without, if I may say with great respect to the noble Lord, having a particular brief for the amendment as it is drafted. The only point that I rise to make is that I think that the analogy of the Press Council is most relevant here. The Press Council, having taken account of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Press, which reported two years ago, has built into it conciliation, cooling-off machinery, which makes the formal proceedings of the Press Council a procedure of last resort. I totally agree with what has been said about the danger of the BCC being the immediate recipient directly of every complaint that comes in.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I add one word? On this occasion I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. If I may say so, based on my experience of having been chairman of a non-statutory authority, to the Advertising Standards Authority it has always seemed right to refer the complaint in the first place to the person against whom the complaint is alleged, and to get their statement before taking further action. This seems to me entirely proper. I do not know about the exact drafting of this amendment, but I would certainly support this in principle.
4.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. My information is that the original constitution of the BBC's programmes complaints commission stipulated that complaints had first to be raised in writing with the broadcasting authority, the BBC. Public comment at the time suggests that this provision was unduly restrictive, and the report of the Younger Committee on Privacy in 1972 proposed that the BBC should amend the procedure for the submission of complaints to the programmes commission by allowing the commission additionally to accept a complaint if it had been raised directly with the commission within 30 days of the date of the programme or at the end of the series of programmes concerned.
That is exactly what has happened. The BBC's complaints commission can now take a complaint direct, and my advice is that they find it causes them no problem. I put that to your Lordships as a piece of evidence which runs contrary to what has been said in this brief debate. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked me what was now to be the position of the BBC's and IBA's complaints bodies. Of course, this will be a matter both for the corporation and for the authority, because, as the noble Lord knows, they appoint the members of those two bodies.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Yes, but if the noble Lord accepts Lord Hooson's amendment they will not be able to disband them.
Lord BELSTEAD: Absolutely, but I am about now to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on these brief grounds. The first one is of degree only, and that is this. I think that the drafting of this part of the Bill will achieve very much what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wishes to achieve. I think a person who considers that he has been treated unfairly in a programme will complain in the first instance to the broadcasting authority, and will complain to the commission only if the authority either fails to respond in good time or responds in a way which the complainant thinks is unsatisfactory. If your Lordships care to glance at Clause 11(4)(c), there I think the Bill envisages the
1340
possibility of such an exchange of correspondence before the complaint reaches the commission. Moreover, Clause 11(3) requires the commission to send a copy of any complaint it receives to the responsible broadcasting authority before it proceeds to consider the complaint. This allows for the possibility that the authority may respond to the satisfaction of the complainant, and it would then be open to the commission, under Clause 10(4), to exercise its discretion not to proceed with a consideration of the complaint. Although that is not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is saying in his amendment, I think it shows that the intentions of the Bill and the intentions of the amendment are not so far apart.
The difficulty with the amendment, it seems to me, is that, having established a commission, I do not think it would be right to place (as it would appear to many people to be) any procedural obstacle in the way of people making a complaint. In this connection, I think it is important to bear in mind that the commission will have the power to give them a kind of remedy, in the form of a finding and a direction to the broadcasting authority concerned to publish that finding in such manner as the commission considers appropriate, which a potential complainant could not get from the broadcasting authority. There is a difference between making your complaint to the commission and making it to the broadcasting authority, and some people may say, "I want to go to the commission because I know I can get a form of sanction under Clause 12". Some of the potential complainants may simply be people who know about the commission and say, "Look here. I know about the commission; I know I can go to it; I know it is easy to go, and that is where I want to go first of all". Therefore, we want to keep this provision in the Bill, if we can, in the way that it is, and not prevent such people from going to the commission in the first instance.
There is another ground on which I must say I rather shrink from the amendment, and that is that the noble Lord's machinery would mean that there would be a delay of as much as 51 days between the broadcast which gives rise to a complaint and the reference of that complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. But I really come back to my basic point, which is that the idea of the Bill is to try

1341
to make the commission an independent body hearing complaints as quickly and as informally as possible. I believe that in trying to do that it is right not to prevent people from going to the commission if they wish to do so in the first instance.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question arising from what he has said to us? The noble Lord, in resisting this amendment, has prayed in aid the report of the Younger Committee on Privacy. May I ask him whether, from that, I am entitled to assume that he or the Home Office now accepts the report of the Younger Committee on Privacy as a whole, or is it merely that it is convenient to clutch at this particular aspect of the report at this particular moment?
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord can make no such assumption with regard to the reactions of the Home Office to the Younger Committee on Privacy. Indeed, it was to the Younger Committee on Privacy that I referred only in passing, as it were. What I was really referring to was the fact that the BBC had decided, as a result of the Younger Committee— it was for the BBC to decide it, not for the Home Office—that they would change their system. The system they have now runs counter to the effect of this amendment, and I was reporting to the Committee that it is my understanding that the BBC finds that, so far as the system is concerned, it does not give the sort of problems which have been raised in the debate this evening.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I could come back on what my noble friend has just said. Again, I have to refer to my experience as far as it is relevant. That is that of course there were occasions when complaints were received and the complaint was obviously ill-founded or frivolous and could be dismissed right away—and this was done. The complaint went directly to the commission, to the authority; and I really do not see why it should not go direct to the commission and then the commission should not refer it to the broadcasting authority for their comments in a kind of interlocutory way. That is the way it is described in Scotland, at any rate. This, in practice, does not hold things up; it tends to make them be dealt with more
1342
quickly and more satisfactorily, and be given better consideration all round. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, takes a view of this and thinks it might be better than his suggestion, but I should have thought that at any rate it was worth considering.
Lord HOOSON: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will forgive me for saying that I again found his reply unsatisfactory, because he did not explain to the Committee why the Government have not followed the recommendations of the Annan Report. He prayed in aid the Younger Report, but the Younger Report was published eight years ago, and was followed later by the Annan Report. Yet he gave no reasons at all for the Government's departure from the recommendations of Annan. Nor did he deal in any way, it seemed to me, with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, who brings to the debate a vast experience of these matters.
Lord Hill made the point, which I am I absolutely certain is right, that this I commission will be flooded with complaints, many of them of a trivial nature and many of which could be sorted out by insisting that, first of all, or indeed following the other procedure recommended, they be referred initially to the broadcasting authority. That would relieve this commission, so that it would deal only with serious matters of complaint. That is what it is intended to do. It is better for the complainant and the body of whom complaint is made to sort out their differences before the necessity of calling in the whole cumbersome machinery of the complaints commission. I do not intend to press this amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will take this matter back to his advisers in the light of what has been said, and in particular in the light of the experience and the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and consider with them whether they will not go back to the simple recommendations of the Annan Report.
Lord HILL of LUTON: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may be right in saying that since my day the system has been changed. I described it as it was founded in my day. I have not heard of the change and I doubt whether the British public knows anything about the

1343
change. Therefore, when we are told that there has been no rush to the commission, all that I can assume is that the vast British public has no idea that there has been a change to direct access. It might be true that the BBC has given no publicity to the change to direct access; but I suggest that when this is embodied in legislation it will become widely known—and why should not the co-plainant, particularly the complainant with a poor complaint—go direct to the commission instead of going to the BBC?
It seems to me that when this becomes law it makes sense that the BBC and the other body should have the right to answer the complainant and, then if the complainant is dissatisfied, he has the right to go to the external body, the commission. It makes sense, when you consider the vast number of complaints, valid or not, that are made about broadcasting, that the BBC should be given the opportunity of answering and settling if possible without going through the formal procedure of the commission.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: As the noble Lord has said that he will not press this amendment, may I press the noble Lord who is to reply to look at this matter carefully. It would be possible to improve it by altering the time scale. The 51 days period seems something which could be easily altered. I believe this to be very important and I hope the noble Lord will look at it and come back.
Lord HOOSON: If I may make a point on the 51 days, I do not regard 51 days as a long period. You are obliged to bring an action in the courts within three years. That is the limitation period for personal injuries, for example, and for defamation; and 51 days is a remarkably short time in the lawyers' timetable. This is being put forward as an alternative means to the actions that can be taken in the courts. If there is action available in the courts under subsection (4)(b) there cannot be resort to the commission. Therefore, 51 days is a false point.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: Reference has been made to the activities of the Press Council as a precedent in
1344
this connection. I wondered whether there was a pattern in other nationalised industries which might guide us. I recall that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee (which looks after railways and complaints in connection with the operation of the railways) provides that the complainant writes, first of all, to the railway board and gives them the opportunity of replying to the person who is complaining and, only thereafter, if he is dissatisfied is it taken to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. I wonder whether the same pattern might not be acceptable in this case.
Lord BERNSTEIN: The noble Lord has raised an important point. The Annan Committee sat for a long time and did a very good job. They visited every television studio in the country and the BBC and came to the conclusion that the number of complaints was so small that the way that they were being dealt with was as good a way as possible. The BBC was the first organisation in the world to have television—at Alexandra Palace before the war. They closed down during the war and have been going now since 1945 on Channel 1, and since 1960 on Channel 2. Independent television has been going 26 years.
The number of complaints are negligible. I received three cables the week before last from the Russian Government complaining about a programme that we had put on; and six or eight weeks ago we got one from the Chinese through their embassy here. There will always be complaints because people look at things differently; but the number is very small considering the number of hours of television from the BBC and the ITA. I regret very much the objections—and I will not say "with malice"—against the BBC which seem to be unwarranted. They are no worse and no better than the ITA.
Lord BELSTEAD: I ought to say in response that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may say that 51 days is like the twinkling of an eye to the law, but the whole idea behind setting up the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is to try to give the advantage of informal and speedy hearings to those who are making complaints. As I understood it, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn favoured a procedure

1345
whereby the commission could at least forward the complaints to the broadcasting authorities in the first instance. I was at pains in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to try to show that the effect of Clause 11(4)(c) and Clause 11(3), taken together, is that this is very much what will happen. If one looks at the Bill in that part one sees that this is very much the effect of what will happen to complaints. I would go so far as to say that undoubtedly the broadcasting authorities will know about the complaint and that, under Clause 10(4), it will be open to the commission to exercise its discretion not to proceed with the consideration of a complaint if it becomes clear that, knowing about the complaint, the broadcasting authorities will be able to meet the complainant in some way or another.
Having said that I must not mislead the Committee, I am not suggesting for a moment that we have got these provisions perfect. Clearly we have not. But I do not think it will be possible to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on the main effect of the amendment that he has put forward. I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has asked me to look at it again. I think that, so far as the Government's thinking is concerned, we have got it as nearly right as we want it. Of course, we will look at it again; but I must emphasise to the Committee that I give no undertaking at all. I think that this is an occasion where, if your Lordships felt at the next stage of the Bill that they ought to vote on it, then that will have to be the way we decide it.
Lord HOOSON: I shall ask for leave to withdraw the amendment, but I give notice that if a satisfactory solution is not found then, on Report stage, we will press it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.9 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 9, line 39, leave out ("or had").
The noble Lord said: I find myself in the same position as my noble friend Lord Belstead in that, not being a lawyer, I am not really competent to speak on this. I do so because, in a sense, this is a probing amendment and I wish to probe the erudition
1346
and knowledge of noble Lords learned in the law and particularly Lord Hooson. One of the most interesting aspects of the whole of Clause 10—and I am referring particularly to subsection (3)—is that, should this Bill become law, the United Kingdom will be the only jurisdiction whereby a complainant can grumble from the grave. I stress this because, as this clause is drafted, this is precisely what is going to happen because the complaint lies in the person who dies. It is quite clear from Clause 10(3) where it states:
"where the person affected is an individual who has died".
In fact, I cannot see that that person who has ceased to exist could have a complaint. He will be perfectly happy sitting on his cloud or wherever; but the people who are harmed are those who are left behind. I ask my noble friend to consider this point because it is important.
Moving closer to the amendment, I believe it is important that these words should be deleted. One must take Clause 10 as a whole. As it is drafted at the moment, a person who has died and has reason to make a complaint to the commission, his personal representative or close members of the family will have a cause to the commission to move this complaint, and the complaint will be about unjust or unfair treatment.
Bearing that in mind, and considering subsection (4)(b), if the matter complained of was not just unfair treatment but a whopping great defamation, a real "Lulu" of a libel, then he will not have any cause of action against the board whatsoever. He is disbarred by subsection (4)(b) which provides:
"…the unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy complained of is a matter in respect of which the person affected has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. …".
It seems rather strange that those who can have recourse to the complaints commission for the comparatively mild complaint of unjust or unfair treatment will have no recourse to the commission for, as I put it before, a real "Lulu" of a libel. By deleting these two words that anomaly would be solved.
I believe it to be important that the bereaved have a cause for satisfying complaints in this area. In my suggestion about the right to grumble from the grave I in no way mean to disparage the intention behind the clause.
Lord HOOSON: I did not intend to speak on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, having mentioned me in his remarks, may I say that I voted for the amendment which deleted, as it were, a remedy to the bereaved and the dead. But, having said that, if the bereaved and the dead are to have a remedy by way of complaint to this commission, it is better that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is accepted.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am delighted to say I can accept not only the amendment but also the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He has given me a good deal of advice on this Bill and I am genuinely delighted to be able to take his advice. 1 ought to give our thinking behind this.
The point as the Government see it, of giving the commission a right to refuse a complaint in a situation where the person affected has an existing legal remedy, is to enable them, for instance, to turn away a complaint which appears, to the commission to be in the nature of a "fishing expedition" designed to exploit the commission's mechanism for the purpose of obtaining material for use in subsequent civil proceedings, for instance. That is why we believe that the word "has" should be in the Bill. The point which my noble friend has raised is to take out the words "or had". My noble friend asked why a complaint on behalf of a person who has died should be precluded simply because that person had a remedy under the law of defamation— a remedy which would have expired on his death. One might also ask why the fact that a living person affected by the treatment complained of had at some time a legal remedy in respect of the treatment should also prevent his complaint from being considered by the commission.
We have come to the conclusion, as I have said, that we ought to accept the amendment. In saying that, I should point out that the amendment would not alter the fact that by virtue of the concluding words of subsection (4) the commission will always have a general discretion not to consider complaints if they consider it inappropriate to do so. We consider with my noble friend that this amendment should now be made.
Lord MORRIS: I am very grateful to my noble friend for accepting this amendment. May I ask him whether he will consider—and, if necessary, write to me— the point regarding complaint vesting in the dead person rather than the people who have actually suffered or potential sufferers?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provision relating to the consideration of complaints]:
5.17 p.m.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 26, leave out ("in private") and insert ("in public, but the Commission may direct that the names of persons involved in dealing or answering the complaint shall not be published if it is of the opinion that such a course is in the public interest.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment that I intend to move in this part of the Bill. Unless I get a satisfactory reply, I intend to press this amendment to a Division. It may be symbolic for the other amendments. The effect of my amendment would be to replace the words "in private" by "in public", but that the commission would suppress names in appropriate cases. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission really works to public satisfaction. That can only happen if it works in public. Our law courts have the reputation that they do because they work in public. Otherwise the case in defence, for example, of the programme maker will not be heard except in the official version of the facts which the BCC publishes in its judgment.
When the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that this is not going to be a court of law, his friend Mr. Leon Brittan, the Minister of State in another place, said that it would build its own body of jurisprudence. It would create its own decisions and create over a period of time its own body of jurisprudence. If that is not in effect creating a court of law, as he envisages it, I do not know what those words mean.
The judgment of the BCC is a judgment which may cast a severe shadow on the reputation of an individual writer, researcher, producer or the group. It is a

1349
judgment that they cannot appeal. There is no appeal. This underlines the importance of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, made of allowing an informal procedure first But if the Government embarked on this course then this is what follows. The lack of any right of appeal makes it absolutely necessary that the public should be permitted to appreciate the competing interests at stake when claims of fairness and infringement of privacy are weighed against a claim for media freedom.
There are two conflicting interests here. How can the commission's decisions be respected? How can it create its corpus of jurisprudence—to quote Mr. Brittan—if the arguments and the evidence are heard behind closed doors? I will not take up the time of the Committee by rehearsing the advantages of public hearings. It seems to me to be an absolutely fundamental characteristic of every statutory tribunal in the country. What irony if we set up a tribunal to decide—what? Looking at the provisions of the Bill, it is issues of unjust or unfair treatment. Those are the issues that this commission are going to decide. Yet they will not give it the most basic characteristic of justice and fairness; that is, the duty to sit in public. Justice must not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done. On this amendment, which I intend to press to a Division, I expect the support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his cohorts because this was the only amendment that the Labour Party in the other place pressed to a Division in the Committee hearings and I should be astonished to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his supporters in this House take a contrary view.
It seems to me that this is fundamental, bearing in mind the role that the Government have ascribed to this commission. They have refused to accept the other view that this could be, as it were, a commission of last resort and that other considerations might apply. It seems to me that if you are going to have cases concerned with complaints of justified breaches of privacy or giving further undeniable publicity to such breaches and in effect compounding the offence and discouraging complaints—if that is the argument that is going to be advanced against having public as opposed to
1350
private hearings—that can be dealt with by the remainder of my amendment, which gives the BCC power to direct in appropriate cases that the names of individuals should not be published. I take the point that there may be an invasion of privacy, I but to repeat the allegation in public and I to publish the names would simply be, as it were, to compound the felony; but I my amendment allows for this. There fore, in the light of their attitude towards I previous amendments, I hope that the Government will accept this one.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS; BRIDGE: I was extremely unhappy when I read the discussions in another place about this aspect, not because we have a party line on it—we have not; it is a free vote on our side—but I like to agree with; my colleagues as far as I can. What I am unhappy about is that I think the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, has got the matter the wrong way round. It seems to me that if I complaints were heard informally in private it would be better for the winning j side. In most cases it is the programme-makers who will be complained about— I not always, but to a very large extent. I do not want to see a series of accusations in public against them which, though they may not be frivolous, may be easily dismissed. I think it might do them more harm that way than if the hearing was in private.
Clearly, any complaint which is upheld should have publicity, but I must say that I could not vote, without a good deal more explanation, for making public every complaint that the commission is prepared to hear against a programme-maker. It seems to me it must be very bad for them. Surely they do not wish to be complained about in public the whole time. It must be far better to have private discussions of these matters until the complaint is made good. I should like to hear what other noble Lords have to say about this. I may be wrong, but that is my view.
Lord MORRIS: With great respect, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and in so doing would seek I the immense authority of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and hope that he will give us his views. As I see it, the complaints commission will be handling only a very small number of complaints indeed: those which have not been satisfactorily

1351
dealt with by the broadcasting authorities themselves. There will be very few, and again I would refer to subsection (4)(c). This is very wide indeed. They are going to be entertaining very few complaints, but those which they do think it is appropriate to entertain will be serious ones. I believe it to be in the utmost interests of justice that hearings should be heard not in camera but in open session.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I confess that I am worried about this one because of the experience that a proportion—possibly a substantial proportion—of the letters in which complaints are embedded are written in such scurrilous terms, making personal attacks on people. Indeed, it has always proved a matter of wonder to me that those who complain of, say, indecency on television can express their complaints in language that would do justice to—but 1 had better not describe the occupation in which such language is customary. It worries me, lest the free press has too good a time in the description of the allegations and so makes matters worse rather than better.
Lord HOOSON: If the noble Lord will give way for a moment, I do not think he has properly appreciated the effect of the amendment. It does not require the complaint to be published; that is dealt with by Clause 11(1). This amendment is concerned with Clause 11(2), which deals specifically with hearings and it is concerned that hearings should be in public. Clause 11(1) allows the commission to deal with a complaint, if they think fit, without a hearing. It is not required to be in public. The effect of the amendment is simply that, if the commission decides there should be a hearing, the hearing should be in public.
Lord HILL of LUTON: Lawyers always did puzzle me. As I understand it, the hearing is going to be in public but there is to be no publication of the allegation upon which the hearing is based. I do not understand this. I can understand the whole business of the allegation, the reply, the discussion and the decision being published, but I do not see how you can sensibly publish the proceedings without exposing the allegations. I am bound to say I think that publicity would have the reverse effect to the one which the noble Lord intends, when I recall, dear me!
1352
some of the letters I received during my years at the BBC and also Independent Television—though in that case they go almost entirely to the companies. The publication of such lurid words would lead to such an expression of widespread disapproval that even Mrs. Whitehouse would be pleased.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not think the position of the Government in this Bill goes quite to the position which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has taken in his very interesting intervention, and certainly the position is not that taken by the amendment. I think the Government position falls somewhere in between and, in the time-honoured way, that possibly means we have almost got it right. The point I should like to stress is that it really would be a mistake to attempt to turn the commission into a court. My noble friend Lord Morris almost made a slip of the tongue: he almost called it a court and then remembered that it was not.
What the Bill seeks to do, which is in line both with Annan and with the previous Government's White Paper, is to try to provide a way of enabling people— many of them ordinary people with no particular interest in the media—who suddenly feel themselves aggrieved within the terms of Part III of the Bill, to go to the commission and have their complaints considered by an independent body. The commission can adjudicate on that complaint and direct that its findings should be published, but it should not attract all the trappings of legal proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned my honourable friend Mr. Brittan, the Minister of State, who spoke in another place. Mr. Brittan made the point during the debate on this particular issue in Committee that an amendment of this nature would change the characteristics of the commission quite dramatically. My honourable friend in another place said that that was the purpose of the amendment. I am constrained to say that I think very similar remarks should be aimed at this amendment. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was wanting to write into the Bill all the panoply of sworn statements, and there is no question that, if this Committee were to accept this amendment, we should have hearings of a kind which are I more akin to a court case.

1353
Having said that, I take with the very greatest seriousness what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said about justice not only being done but being seen to be done, and I should like to make it clear that there is no question of the commission operating under a kind of veil of secrecy. The commission will have power under Clause 12 to require their findings to be published. These could indicate the nature of the proceedings and the people who attend them, and there is nothing to prevent a complainant or a broadcasting authority from publicising what happened at a hearing, or the nature of a complaint.
It is because of that last point that I say that the position of the Government on this comes somewhere between the stance which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, took up, and the effects of this amendment. I can only express the hope that the Committee may feel that on this occasion the Government have got it about right.
Lord BERNSTEIN: I should like to ask the Minister whether he can explain a little further the benefits of being private. Is there any reason why the complainants should not tell their stories to English newspapers and get a full page about what they will say in private? On the other side, the television company, the producer or the ITV or BBC director will not be able to answer in the same scurrilous way as the complainant. If this is public and if there is the right kind of commission and the right chairman, with the usual methods of a tribunal, they will be able to answer the complaint. Otherwise, I am afraid that Private Eye will have a better story before he starts.
Lord FOOT: Before my noble friend says what he will do, may I say that I have listened to this discussion and I find myself in two minds about it? There are, obviously, a lot of arguments on both sides, but I fear that my noble friend's amendment is defective in one particular. The amendment provides that the commission may, if it thinks fit, direct that the names of the parties shall not be publicised. This is not a court of law. When a court of law, in its discretion, says that the name of the victim of a blackmailer is not to be published and then someone disobeys that—as a nephew of mine did some years ago—he can be brought up for contempt of court, but I know of no
1354
authority by which this commission could direct that the name should not be mentioned, and the press would, I fear, be entirely free to mention the name if they wished. If there is to be any further discussion about public against private, that is a consideration which ought to be borne in mind and ought to be resolved.
Lord MORRIS: I wonder whether the Committee would forgive me for a moment. Would my noble friend Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, consider wording the amendment the other way round, giving the commissioners discretion to hold a hearing in public, if they deem it to be a matter of such public importance, that it should be held in that way?
Lord STRABOLGI: I must say that I am not convinced by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He has not given any reason why these hearings should be held in private. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I am not one of my noble friend Lord Donaldson's cohorts. He and I have hardly agreed at all about any amendment on this Bill, and I do not agree with the line that he is taking on this one. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said so eloquently, the courts of law sit in public, Parliament sits in public and the Committees of both Houses sit in public. Will the commision publish a précis of their findings and of the complaints? Will they be allowed to publish a printed typescript of the whole evidence in the proceedings? Why are these proceedings to be in private? What possible advantage will there be?
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has given the loophole that if the commission so direct—it may be for reasons of defence or for some other reason—a hearing can be heard in private. But is there any earthly reason why other hearings should not receive the full glare of public gaze, just as the original programme did, and, no doubt, much press comment following it?
Lord BELSTEAD: With his great experience of broadcasting, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has answered for me the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, made a most persuasive speech as to why he would hesitate about having hearings in public and, in essence, his

1355
reasons were very much the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—
Lord STRABOLGI: I must interrupt the noble Lord. If I heard him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was talking about the initial complaint, which he thought should be considered in private, and rightly so. Here I agree with him. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out when the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was speaking, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, deals with the hearing.
Lord BELSTEAD: Subject to correction by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, may I say that you cannot distinguish between the initial complaint and the hearing—
Lord STRABOLGI: Of course you can.
Lord BELSTEAD: I shall be extremely interested to know how the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would distinguish between the initial complaint and the hearing. Perhaps we shall be favoured with an explanation of that. But I am telling the Committee that you cannot distinguish between the two, and that you either decide to have both the making of the complaint and the hearing in private, or you decide to have it in public.
May I put the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, right on one or two points? He asked me what would be the situation, broadly speaking, about publication. At the risk of repeating what I have said, may I make it crystal clear that there is no question of the commission operating under a veil of secrecy. The reason for that is that they have power under Clause 12 to require their findings to be published, and there is nothing to prevent a complainant or a broadcasting authority from publicising what has happened.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hill, I find this a rather difficult decision to make. But, on balance, and in the light of my own personal experience in independent television, I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I think that the complaints commission is designed to give a reasoned judgment on a matter of complaint. If it is held in the full glare of publicity, there is the danger of the
1356
complaining party exploiting the further opportunities for publicity that might emerge in the public hearing. I do not think that that provides the basis for a reasoned and objective understanding of the complaint.
What we are seeking to establish is whether the complaint is reasonable, whereas the opportunity provided by widespread publicity about the hearing is an invitation to some people to exploit that. I believe that holding it in private provides a basis for reasonable consideration that is not always provided by a public hearing on some very sensitive matters. There are very sensitive programmes being produced on television, and some which I know are to be produced or are already in the can, which could create tremendous publicity if complaints were to be received and debated in the public forum. I would prefer to see reasoned judgment on these programmes, and that might be afforded by a private rather than a public hearing.
Lord DRUMALBYN: It makes a tremendous difference, whether you have the hearing in public or in private, how the case is to be heard. I have been looking at the Bill while this discussion has taken place and I do not see that there is any right for a complainant to be represented. If a complainant was represented and if everybody was watching very carefully what was said, as lawyers do, or are supposed to do, no doubt there would be something to be said for the hearing to be in public. But if the complainant himself were stating his case and the broadcasting organisation were stating theirs in reply, there would be a very great deal to be said for a private hearing in the calmest possible atmosphere. I imagine that most of the complaints will be from not very high-powered people, from people not experienced in public speaking.
If I am right in thinking that there is no provision for a complainant to be represented and he is going to put his own case, there is a very strong case indeed for the complaint being heard in private. I know that the procedure for complaints to be dealt with, for a summary of the complaint to be given and for there to be a conclusion works perfectly well. In the light of that, the press are going to exercise their own judgment about important

1357
cases which catch the public eye. I should have thought it would be better, in the circumstances that I am here presupposing, for complaints to be heard in private, but whether or not I am right about that I do not know.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am very worried about this. It is a difficult problem. I should like to ask the noble Lord who moved the amendment to withdraw it and to bring it back on Report, after further discussion. My approach is absolutely one-sided. I am for protecting the programme-maker against unnecessary, vulgar and offensive complaints. If what I am suggesting is going to have the opposite effect I shall not push it, but I have not been convinced. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, convinced me still more that anything of this kind which, as an absolute rule, was held in public would be more damaging to the programme-makers than the other way. If that is not the case, I certainly do not want to support the Government. I find it very difficult, however, to make up my mind on what we have heard. I should like to talk to a lot of friends who are in television and ask them what they think. My noble friend Lord Bernstein said that the newspapers would take it up. They would take up some of it, but I should have thought that they would take up less if the hearing were in private, with the parties being allowed to make a report, than if it were in public. This is the whole point at issue and I do not think that we ought to decide it until we have got clearer views. I hope that the noble Lord will consider doing that.
Lord HOOSON: I think that this is a very, very important issue. First may I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about who can bring a complaint. If he will look at Clause 10(2), he will see that the complaint can be made by
"the person affected or by a person authorised by him to make the complaint for him".
Having read that, I should have thought that at a hearing under Clause 11 a person would almost certainly be entitled to be represented. It would be very difficult to refuse representation to someone who said, "I have a legitimate complaint, but I myself am not articulate enough to put it over". The argument would be irresistible that in those circumstances
1358
a complainant could, if he or she chose, be represented by somebody. It therefore follows that there is going to be something akin to a public hearing.
Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I have had time to reflect on his contribution. If he is right—and I accept that he is—that many of the complaints made about the BBC regarding the obscenity of programmes were themselves couched in obscene and sometimes difficult language, why should not the public know the quality of those complaints? The complaints may directly affect the career of a writer, producer, actor, or whoever it may be. Why should not the public know that that is the quality of the persons making those complaints?
Although I do not resile at all from the fact that under my amendment there is no reason to publish the complainant's original letter, although its terms may come out in a public hearing, the more I reflect upon it the more I think to myself: Why should not the public have the right to know? The BBC received 2,000 complaints about this programme. The public might take a very different view if they knew that 1,250 of those complaints were couched in obscene language. Anyway, why should not we know it?
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: The noble Lord has said that he is anxious to protect the writer and the producer, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. But the writer and the producer are more likely to be protected in a private hearing than in the full glare of publicity. The whole of his future career might be affected if he were subjected to a public inquiry and public exposure.
Lord HOOSON: I disagree with the noble Lord for this reason. If a serious complaint is made of a writer and the complaints commission decide to have a full hearing, the writer's, or the producer's, or the interviewer's activities are investigated in detail and he gives his justification. If the commission find against him, the public have had access to the justification. Even though the commission find against him, the public know what he said. If the commission find for him and against the complainant, nothing is lost by the hearing having been in public.

1359
In an article this commission has been likened to a potential Star Chamber. One of the characteristics of the Star Chamber was that it met in private. The one thing which can really guarantee that it will not develop into a private broadcasting Star Chamber will be that its hearings are open and in public. The Government have themselves selected the role that this commission is to play. They have rejected the sound advice in that instance given by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, from his experience.
Let us look at the powers that this commission are going to have in relation to the producers and the programme makers. They have the power to summon the broadcasting executives before it. They have the power to cross-examine them and question them. They can call for their correspondence. They can call for inter-departmental correspondence. All these things would be done behind closed doors. They can publish a report of their finding and give their reasons for it but they may or may not deal adequately with the justification, or the defence made by the programme-makers. Why is it better for the public that these things should be heard in private? What have the public to fear from it? This deals with the noble Lord's point. If a producer has confidence in his judgment and in his programme, and also the interviewer in his, why should they not justify it publicly? Is not that better protection for the public?
My last point is that raised by my noble friend Lord Foot on the absence of a sanction for the discretion granted in my amendment to the commission. This point is of very considerable substance and will have to be more carefully considered. If I couple this with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, it may be that at a later stage I would go along with an amendment which would allow a discretion, in rare cases, for the hearing to be held in private, provided the general rule was that the hearing should be in public. But if all parties perhaps consider that it should be in private, that might be a reason.
But, having said that, I think this is an amendment which I am bound to press to a Division because it goes to a fundamental of justice—and after all this commission is going to be investigating what is
1360
unjust and unfair and it has always been held in this country that things concerning justice and fairness should be heard in the open. Justice must not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done, and that is why I press this amendment.
Lord HALE: It is abundantly clear that the Committee is not in a position to come to a decision on this proposal. I know that it is extremely unpopular for the discussion to be pursued at this moment, for many reasons, but the discussion has shown that noble Lords have been saying one after another that they are not quite sure about the preliminary hearing or how it starts or whether information is tabled and supplied so that all persons concerned get it. For the moment my own mind would run rather to the hope that there would be some preliminary inquiry—a gradual acquaintance with the nature of it and before a decision was taken that a full inquiry was justified or necessitated. In that circumstance, I would certainly be more impressed by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that this, if it is to be a full hearing, must take place in private, and, frankly, the original notification of the parties and the steps that are taken and the question of whether this is going to be an inquiry with counsel or not, are all matters in our minds; and if the discussion could be postponed for a further amendment to be tabled and the existing amendment withdrawn, so much the better. If not, I shall have to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on this occasion.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whom I found dangerously persuasive, that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is the right one, that there should be discussion—Yes, discussion—between those who have shown an interest. Discussion indeed with the Minister to try to get this right, for one has the feeling that in the details of this proposal we are coming up against some very important principles, and I think it would not be wise for the noble Lord to lose his amendment here. It is far better that we should think about it, get together and seek to resolve the matter at the Report stage.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I, too, found the noble Lord's arguments dangerously persuasive and,

1361
given time, I think I might be convinced, but I do not see how I can be convinced this evening.
Lord BERNSTEIN: There is no use going through the argument all over again, but perhaps we might take a practical case. If somebody complains about a programme, the parish which the authority and commission operate is limited to television. It can be shown, subject to censorship, in cinemas. This has happened many times in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, knows. We have had many a battle at one time on the question of somebody attacking a programme, unwarranted and damaging, or attempting to damage, the reputations of the writers, the actors and directors involved. So there can be all this about "private", but if there is a complaint made about BBC or ITV programmes they can be shown in the cinema and there is nothing one can do about it.
Lord HOOSON: I am sorry that I have been found "dangerously persuasive"; I hoped that I should be found persuasive. I have listened to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and I myself had a reservation about the point made by my noble friend Lord Foot. In the circumstances, what I intend to do is to consult with those who are with me in spirit on this very important point and, if the Government do not meet us on this point, to table an appropriate amendment at Report stage. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Publication of Commission's findings]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) Directions given under this section may, if the Commission think fit, include a requirement that the broadcasting body shall pay to the person making the complaint the whole or part of the costs or expenses incurred by him in connection therewith.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was suggested by the Law Society but I was never very sure that I wanted to see
1362
it carried. I thought it ought to be open for discussion, but as the hour is late and in view of what has been said about the dangers of money coming into the problems of complaints I feel inclined not to move it. If anybody thinks it ought to be moved we can discuss it on Report.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
(" Power to modify Part III in relation to programmes broadcast on the Fourth Channel in Wales
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament provide for all or any of the provisions of this Part (except section 8, this section and Schedule 1) to apply, with such exceptions, additions or other modifications as may be specified in the regulations, in relation to complaints in cases where the relevant programme was broadcast by the IBA on the Fourth Channel in Wales (and was therefore provided by the Welsh Authority and not by the IBA).
(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different circumstances.
(3) In this section "the Fourth Channel in Wales" has the same meaning as in Part IIA.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2, which I would just remind the Committee was the first of the amendments which I moved on the first day of Committee to set up the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
(" Rentals
. In accordance with the provisions of Clause 31(5)(b) of the Main Act the Authority will supply to the Secretary of State and make public at six monthly intervals with a summary in each Annual Report, full details of secondary rentals retained by, and of grants given to, Independent Local Radio contractors for special programme projects together with detailed information, including cost, of these programme projects.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to oblige the IBA to show on what its grants to radio contractors are spent. These grants are sums of money which the authority collects by way of secondary rental which the authority charges profitable stations. I understand that not all stations are sufficiently profitable to become liable to pay this rental although I understand from a recent IBA statement that all contractors are in receipt of some form of grant or other. I am sure that the Minister will know that the sums involved are not insignificant. In the financial year to 30th September 1980 some £2·7 million are due to go from the authority to radio contractors, of which about £1·4 million will go back to the contractors, either by way of improvements for which the authority will undertake to pay on the contractor's behalf or by a process which allows the contractor to retain a proportion of the rental due. At the moment—and this may come as some surprise to noble Lords—the authority is not able to provide a detailed description of how these sums of money are employed.
In addition, it is necessary to point out that the authority cannot provide any useful description of the criteria it uses to calculate the level of secondary rental or the basis on which the contractors can calculate the cost of projects which can be funded from the secondary rental pool. I made mention of these matters at Second Reading and I am sure the Minister will accept that a straightforward reading of the authority's existing obligations under Section 31 of the 1973 Act, to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to accounts, would lead one to think that this information with regard to rental matters should readily be provided. This is not the case, and this amendment seeks to remedy that.
Unfortunately, in order to impress the Committee with the full importance of this matter, it is necessary to go into some more detail of the present system of rental charged by the authority on radio contractors. There are two levels— primary and secondary. The authority has said that primary rental is assessed for each contractor—and here I quote:
"on a wide range of factors including size, profitability, revenue costs, return on capital,
1364
the economic background of the area and its potential for growth ".
I hope noble Lords have taken careful note of each word in that definition. It is so comprehensive and detailed that one wonders exactly why the authority finds it necessary to construct a second tier to its rental system. However, the authority does. Even the primary rental charge varies, and recently the authority adjusted the primary rental for all its contractors. Some of the rentals were increased; some went down. One wonders why. An article in the New Statesman in June, by Jonathon Coe and Peter Edmunds, inquired further into these matters. Their view was that even the contractors themselves were unsure as to how the authority calculates primary rentals. The contractors were told by the IBA that the system was based on an infinite wisdom.
The picture becomes even more complicated when consideration is given to secondary rental. The rental is payable, says the IBA, when a company's annual pre-tax profits exceed 5 per cent, of its net advertising revenue. It is charged at the rate of 25 per cent, of that excess, or 55 per cent, when profits exceed 10 per cent, of advertising revenue. To quote the New Statesman article:
"The IBA's apparent intention is to take the funds away from stations with very high levels of advertising revenue and either spend the money themselves on engineering improvements or redistribute it to contractors for special projects to enhance the quality of independent local radio".
Here we come to the heart of the matter. The authority allows the contractors to keep, or, using the authority's own words, retain a proportion of the secondary rental due. In fact, one contractor told the New Statesman investigators that they expected, as a matter of course, to receive about one-third of their secondary rental as a refund. In other words, the authority redistributes this rental, which in some ways is a form of taxation, in the form of grants or a permission to retain proportions of the rental due. In the latter case the most profitable companies receive the largest refunds.
All we are saying in this amendment is that the authority should indicate exactly how much money is being granted to or retained by the companies and on what the money is being spent. This surely

1365
must be a provision with which a Government so sensitive to the feather-bedding of commerce must have some sympathy. After all, this money is being generated by the use of a contractor of public property—the airways—and is being collected by an authority charged by Parliament with responsibilities. In this way these are public funds which are being handed back to private and commercial interests. As I have said, the sum of money involved is not insignificant. I have a press notice from the IBA which shows that of the £2·7 million in secondary rentals due in the year ending last September, £1·3 million was being used by the IBA for expanding, maintaining and controlling services. I thought it was interesting that the IBA should have issued this press notice at all, and I have some feeling that maybe it was issued after I had criticised at Second Reading its reluctance to provide any information of this sort.
This press notice shows that one-third of a million pounds is being spent on general projects to enhance the independent local radio system. No detailed break-down of any of these sums is given in this notice and it is worrying that the authority uses such vague and general terms. However, it does list one or two items of interest. For example, the authority is willing to provide grants to contractors to enable them to provide technical facilities for coverage from local soccer grounds. Surely all contractors, when applying for a radio franchise, must have given some indication to the authority that they would provide sports broadcasts. Surely this is a cost which should be borne by the contractor out of ordinary programme budgets and not a matter for subsidy?
If I may, I shall return to the press notice, which shows that £1.1 million is provided by the authority to share amongst 10 contractors. The break-down of this money raises important issues. The largest proportion of the £1.1 million —£725,000—goes to the most profitable radio station in the country—Capital Radio, a contractor responsible for providing what the IBA describes as the London General Entertainment Service. Just over £500,000 of this goes to the music services provided by Capital; £75,000 goes on training; £65,000 goes under the heading of community broadcast
1366
service; £55,000 is provided on educative items and £20,000 on speech programming.
Here I must say that I owe the Committee an apology, because on Second Reading I stated that the Capital "Help Line" project was financed out of secondary rental. I have since been advised by Capital Radio that the Capital "Help Line" project was orignally funded from a grant by the Manpower Services Commission, and once it had been deemed to be a success by Capital, Capital took the cost of this service into its own budget. These figures are interesting to read; but on what is this money actually spent? The press notice from the IBA does not say.
Here I should like to compare these costs with BBC costs. We have had many debates about BBC finances and rarely have we been in a position to compare BBC costs with those of commercial radio. But this statement which I have before me is most instructive. It shows that the total cost of output for a BBC local radio station in the period 1978–79 was £98 an hour. As we know, BBC local radio stations produce many hours of speech programming, research, news and current affairs, and we can take it that this is a relatively expensive radio programming. Therefore, it is not unfair to compare these costs with the costs of the London general entertainment station. When we do that we see that Capital Radio is in receipt of sufficient funds to make 200 hours of speech programming, 550 hours of educative items and 650 hours of community broadcast services. It would be interesting to know the details of how those moneys were spent.
This amendment does not seek to end, in any shape or form, the provision of grants to contractors. Indeed, we feel it is quite right that the IBA should possess the power to make such grants as they could make a substantial contribution—and, indeed, have made a substantial contribution—to improving commercial radio as a quality service. However, I think we must remember that the authority as a public body derives its powers from Acts enacted in Parliament. It receives funds from commercial contractors which Parliament places in the care and trust of the authority. Surely this process confers an obligation upon the authority to say what the money is being spent on. I urge the Minister to accept

1367
the amendment in the terms in which I have tabled it. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I was most interested to listen to the Lord Ponsonby's tour d'horizon of the grant-making powers of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, but I think, if I may say so, he is being a little hard on the authority. Hard, first of all, because of the suggestion in the noble Lord's speech that insufficient information is given by the authority as to the uses to which grants are put. Clause 17(5) of the Bill already requires the authority to include in its annual report an account of the way in which the power to make grants under this section has been exercised during that year. We are, therefore, not talking about a state of affairs where the authority is free to do exactly as it wishes with the power given to it by Clause 17(5) without giving any account of how it has chosen to use that power.
Some of your Lordships may, all the same, feel that there may be advantage in tightening up the statutory obligation on the authority to give precise details of exactly how much it has paid out in grants and for what purposes. As regards that criticism, I would only say this: we have every reason to believe that in the context of its annual report this is precisely the kind of information which will be provided by the authority. But if that were not the case, the Home Secretary already has the power under Section 31(5)(b) of the 1973 Act to require the authority to furnish him with all forecasts, estimates, information and documents which he or it may require with respect to the financial transactions and engagements of the authority. That is to say, if in the event we consider that the IBA should include more facts and figures in its annual report about grants given to ILR contractors, the power already exists to require it to provide the facts and figures.
The IBA has recently published details, to which Lord Ponsonby referred, in their news release of 30th September, about the uses to which secondary rental payable in the financial year ending on that date has been put, and that is, I believe, the reason why the IBA chose that particular date to make its publication. In particular the IBA has given details of the amounts
1368
which each of the 10 companies liable for secondary rental contribution has contributed to the total, and of the way in which those sums which were retained by the companies, as opposed to being paid over to the IBA for it to deploy, were spent. The noble Lord quoted the figures: in all the companies were liable for £2·71 million and they retained £1·115 million for expenditure on approved projects. Therefore, I think the noble Lord was also being a little hard so far as the actual details of the grants are concerned. I do think that that news release gives almost all the detail that the reader could reasonably want. Finally, I should like to add one thing, about the amendment itself. It would lay upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority the requirement that it should make a report every six months. I think that is a little excessive. But it is not on those grounds that I am saying that I feel I would not want to accept the amendment. It is on the grounds that I do not think the amendment is necessary. I think that, if one looks at the Bill, particularly Clause 17(5), there is power enough to do exactly what the noble Lord's amendment is seeking to do.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I shall study the noble Lord's reply with interest. The particular point of his reply is that the powers are there and in fact the Home Secretary can demand any additional details, or the authority can demand any additional details, which are felt to be necessary. My view of that would be that these are details which should be made available publicly. I hope the noble Lord is right that there is a sufficiency of detail which will become available. My feeling is that the details which have so far been made available are not sufficient. Having considered the terms of his reply, I shall probably come back to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
(" Power of Secretary of Stale to repeal Part IIA and modify Parts JI and IV by order
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) repeal Part IIA (including Schedules (Provisions as to Welsh Fourth Channel Authority) and (Modifications of main Act etc, in relation to the Fourth Channel in Wales')) as from a specified date; and

(b) make such modifications of Parts II and IV as he thinks appropriate for securing that as from that date there are suitable arrangements for the broadcasting of television programmes for reception in Wales, and in particular of television programmes in Welsh.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b), an order under this section may modify Part II or IV by the addition of provisions whose purpose is—

(a) to require the Authority to ensure that the programmes broadcast on the Fourth Channel for reception in Wales contain a suitable proportion of matter in Welsh;

(b) to make provision corresponding to that made by section 7F(3);

(c) to provide for consultation between the BBC and the Authority with a view to ensuring that their respective arrangements for broadcasting television programmes in Welsh for reception in Wales are such as will together best serve the interests of persons residing in Wales;

(d) to provide for the appointment of a person to advise the BBC and the Authority on matters of programme scheduling arising out of such consultation as is mentioned in paragraph (c);

(e) to secure that, so far as is practicable, the television programmes in Welsh broadcast by the BBC and the Authority for reception in Wales, taken together, maintain a proper balance and wide range in their subject-matter and that, as between the television programmes in Welsh so broadcast by them respectively, a proper balance of subject-matter is maintained, having regard as mentioned in main section 2(2)(b);

(f) to establish a committee to keep under review, and report to the Secretary of State on, the extent to which the arrangements for the broadcasting by the BBC and the Authority respectively of television programmes in Welsh for reception in Wales are serving the interests of persons residing in Wales.

(3) An order under this section may include such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit (including provisions involving the payment by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament of such fees and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine), and in particular may make provision for keeping the Welsh Authority temporarily in existence for purposes connected with their activities and finances prior to the repeal of Part IIA and for winding up the affairs of, and dissolving, that Authority.
(4) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(6) In this section "modifications" includes additions, omissions and alterations, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: Consequent upon moving on the first day of Committee Amendment No. 2, which set up the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, Clause 20 is no longer necessary in the Bill, and therefore I beg to move that Clause 20 be omitted from the Bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): I shall put the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, and the noble-Lords can vote against it.
Clause 20 disagreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 46:
Insert the following new clause:
(" Fourth Channel in Wales
. The Secretary of State shall have powers to make grants to the Fourth Channel subsidiary of the Authority as is considered necessary to allow the subsidiary to fulfil its obligations to provide a Welsh language service on the Fourth Channel in Wales and such moneys as are required will be obtained by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, in accordance with the provisions governing additional payments in section 27B of the main Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is the only one of the series of amendments put down by my Welsh colleagues to which I think I must refer. I hope the noble Lord will say it is unnecessary, and, if it is, I shall be happy to withdraw it. I can deal with it quite quickly. We want to know who is going to pay for the extra expenses which the new arrangements for the Welsh fourth channel are bound to involve. We have, therefore, put down an amendment. We had originally put down an amendment that the Secretary of State should be able to make grants to the fourth channel, if it were necessary, to provide a Welsh language service, et cetera, and that this money should be obtained in accordance with the provisions

1371
governing additional payments under Section 27(1)(b) of the main Act. That section says, as I interpret it, that the IBA can find this money and use it as an expense before the levy figure is struck. If that is correct then it means that in the end that is money which does not go to the Government and therefore the Government find it.
I am not saying that the fourth, Welsh, channel should be financed in this way. I am anxious to be sure that it can be. This amendment would make certain that if there were a shortfall it would not necessarily fall on the IBA, who would inevitably have to take it out of their other programme funds. I hope I make myself clear. If the noble Lord can tell me that this is already the case, I will be very happy to withdraw the amendment. If it is not the case, I think we ought to discuss it further. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not wish to appear unhelpful, but I really do not think that I can add very much to what I said when moving the Welsh amendments on the first day in Committee and in answer to a question which was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and then I repeated the words to the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I made the point that the financing of the fourth channel in Wales is a matter which must be subject to discussion between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary together with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, there will be discussions also with the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and I really cannot go further than what I said on that occasion.
So far as this amendment is concerned, there is a particular problem which the noble Lord will be familiar with and which would involve this amendment. It involves hypothecating monies raised for a particular effect and this is something which, or course, is not done so far as the raising of taxation is concerned. It is for that a reason partly, but of course mainly because of the general reply which I gave when moving the Welsh amendments, that I hope the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not press the amendment,
1372
first, because we shall lose it and, secondly, because it would not get us very much further anyway, but I am not happy about this. What we are afraid of is that the reason the Government in the first place reneged on the Welsh channel was because of cost, and they are now putting it back and are going to take the money which it is going to cost off other ITV programmes through deducting it from the IBA's existing income. The IBA's income for the fourth channel comes from the contractors, and it will be £70 or £80 million. If the IBA have to find another £10 or £12 million, whatever the figure may be, to have a better Welsh channel, where is it to come from? From the IBA's funds. This is not hypothecating anything. The money is there and goes to the IBA. If the IBA spend more of it legitimately, then less goes to the Government; but it is a very twisted view to suggest that this is hypothecation. I submit that it is not.
I do not want to make too much trouble about this, but I wish to make it quite clear to this Committee and to people who read these reports that we believe the Government are planning to finance the new Welsh channel out of old money already given to the IBA. We believe that if this is so they ought to say so. We believe it is being concealed, and we are trying to expose it.
I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to speak again. I am not going to press the amendment but I shall probably come back to it on Report, because it is a quite fundamental point. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe said: "You mean we are going to have to pay it off the Scottish figures?" That could be true, but if so it would be totally unsatisfactory. I am making a rather serious point. I know it is difficult for the noble Lord to give me satisfaction. I have been in the same position more than once, of failing to give him satisfaction. I am not satisfied, and although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment I shall want to come back to this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN gave notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
(" Provision as to advertisements by Order of Secretary of State
. After section 8 of the main Act (Advertisements) there shall be inserted the following section:—
" 8A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument and after consulting the Authority make such provision as appears to him necessary or expedient (including provision of a financial nature) as to facilitate the provision of advertisements included in television programmes broadcast in the area of any TV programme contractor by the Authority on the Fourth Channel by persons suitable for the purpose not being programme contractors or connected with programme contractors.
(2) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House." ").
The noble Lord said: This was an amendment that was discussed along with amendments to Clause 5, and I do not propose to pursue it further now but will bring it back on Report.
Clause 22 [Advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert ("Home Secretary after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as appropriate, and with the Chairman of the")
The noble Lord said: These amendments were put down for discussion in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Merlyn Rees but, owing to the lateness of the hour, they were never moved. We are luckier that the hour tonight is not very late, therefore I can move.
The importance of advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Ireland is great enough to justify appointment by the Secretary of State after consultation with his colleagues who have the local responsibility. The IBA should, of course, be consulted too, and my amendment allows for that. But I should like to see these committees gaining in stature; in particular, they could be very useful in meeting complaints and worries from the staff. There is a strong feeling among programme makers that under this Bill the audience has ample avenues for complaint but the broadcaster has no linking contact with a complaints body where disagreements with the box over programme content, censorship and the like can be heard. This view was very strongly expressed in discussions in
1374
Edinburgh and represents a real feeling of frustration which should have some outlet.
I wonder whether these advisory committees might not also be used for a further, very important function. I shall on Report, move an amendment, as yet unformed, that there should be some J monitoring of the fourth channel's performance in relation to demands of Clause 3 which, I have said repeatedly, are general and unambiguous but easily eroded. I think that this ought to be independent of the IBA. If these committees were appointed by the Home Secretary they would have that degree of independence and might prove suitable bodies to do this very job. As their establishment is already part of the Bill, the hackneyed complaint that we are asking for a new Quango would not apply.
What I shall be asking is that they should be critical advisory committees to the IBA, that they should be appointed independently of the IBA, and that they should in addition have the function not only of advising but of monitoring and criticising. I shall elaborate on this on Report, but for the moment I want to ensure that they are independently appointed so that if, by the time we get to Report, we wish to give them a function of this kind, we can do so. The main purpose of the amendment is to make them stronger and more important bodies, and I think my amendments here would have that effect. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am bound to take exception to the form in which this is done. If an advisory committee for Scotland is to be appointed, it must be by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In any case—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: "After consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland" is in the amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I see, "after consultation ", but I do not quite see the point of having this clause in that form. If you want to say "the Secretary of State", that is all that is required. The Secretary of State in Scotland is the Secretary of State for Scotland; the Secretary of State in Wales is the Secretary of State for Wales. I think on a point of principle it would be quite wrong to put it

1375
in this form. Secondly, I am not sure I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about the propriety—the advisability, I had better say, rather the propriety—of having these committees appointed by the Secretary of State.
It is not a control body in any form that it is proposed to appoint; it is an advisory committee. The general principle of the device is that the people who are to receive the advice appoint the advisers. In my view, it is better that the authority should appoint its own advisers. That has worked perfectly well with the BBC and I do not see why it should not work equally well with the authority.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that it should be borne in mind when considering this amendment, or rather the amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, that the IBA, as a matter of practice, has always maintained national advisory committees under the discretionary powers conferred on it by Section 10 of the 1973 Act and that the new Section 10A will do no more than put the arrangements on a formal footing.
Under existing arrangements appointments to the national committees, as to all other advisory committees set up under Section 10 of that Act, would be made by the authority. I say that because it seems to me anomalous if appointments of members to national advisory committees were to be made on a different basis from that to the other advisory committees, which are important bodies and which have existed for some years advising the IBA on different matters connected with broadcasting.
I should like to interject just one proviso to what I am saying. Of course, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will have noticed that the only exception to this is that under subsection (2) of the new Section 10A the chairman of each national advisory committee will be the member of the authority appointed by the Home Secretary to make the interests of the country concerned his special care. The particular advantage of this is that the chairman of each national committee, as a member of the IBA, will form a link between the national committee and the authority.
But, with that exception, it certainly
1376
seems anomalous to me if one says that the national advisory committees, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, to be advisory and acting therefore in exactly the same way as the other advisory committees to the IBA, were to be appointed in a different way from the other IBA advisory committees. It is on those grounds that I confess doubt and not much support for the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I must go on trying. I want to get something critical into the Bill. It lacks any criticism by any body except the IBA who are doing the job themselves. Although I have the highest possible opinion of the IBA as it is—and as, for the rest of my life, I think it will be—I still think that it is an absolutely false principle. If we had these advisory committees appointed by the Secretary of State (and, of course, I accept Lord Drumalbyn's suggestion)—whether they be appointed by the Home Secretary after talking to his colleagues or by each Secretary of State—I should be very happy. But what I want these bodies to do is not just to be advisory, but to have a duty of criticism and that is what I cannot get into the Bill. I keep on trying to do so and I fall a cropper every time. I shall try again on Report, but I do not think at this time of night that it is much good pushing it. But, I hope noble Lords will understand that at present there is no monitoring of the very, very broad instructions contained in Clause 3 and without some body looking at this over a period we will get, inevitable erosion. But, I shall not press the amendment tonight. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
6.35 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 51 A:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Local Radio Advisory Committees.
After main section 11(5) (which indicates the functions of Local Radio Advisory Committees) there shall be inserted—
" (5A)(a) In discharging their functions under subsection (5) above the advisory

1377
committees shall be guided by the following principles, namely,

(i) the need for them to publicise their existence, functions and deliberations as widely as possible, by means of notices, minutes and annual reports, and

(ii) the need for them to act in all respects independently of the Authority:

Provided that nothing in this section shall prohibit an advisory committee from refusing to discuss in a public meeting or, as the case may be, in minutes of a meeting or an annual report, any matter which, in its opinion, raises issues of commercial confidentiality."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51A. This amendment concerns the activities of local advisory committees. Those committees generally meet quarterly. One of their most important functions is to report each year to the IBA on the activities of the local stations involved within their area. It is on that the IBA will decide whether to roll a particular independent local radio contract or not.
The authority has described these advisory committees as being the ears of the authority. However, severe constraints are placed upon the independence and freedom of action of these advisory committees: the authority appoints the members of the committee; a proportion of the membership comes from nominations provided by local authorities; the IBA decides which of those nominees, in fact, will sit on the advisory committee; the advisory committees generally only meet on IBA premises in the presence of officials of the IBA; the meetings are confidential; the reports of the advisory committee and its minutes are confidential as well as the annual report on the performance of the contractors. Not surprisingly few people know about the work of the local advisory committees. Yet they could be performing potentially a very important role.
Having said that, I should like to add that there have been some occasions when, in fact, the advisory committees have held public meetings and one would wish that that sort of activity of a local advisory committee would become more frequent. Their links with the public are fairly minimal at present and the amendment seeks to provide a more important role for them, particularly by getting them to publicise their activities.
The amendment deals with various matters which in our view would have the
1378
effect of their activities becoming more well known, people taking an interest in what they do and people feeling that this was a vehicle to which they could talk. It seems to me that this would be a useful addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I welcome the fact that we have now moved on to discussing local radio, because I think that this is a very important part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the speech which he has made in which I was very interested. As regards his amendment, if he will forgive me for saying so, I differ from the amendment in the view that it takes of the need—which the amendment, by implication, says has not yet been met—for these local radio advisory committees to publicise themselves further. Indeed, the noble Lord in his speech said that the local radio advisory committees do not have very strong contracts with the local communities.
On those two points I would say that I think there is no facet of public service broadcasting more open to public opinion and scrutiny than the independent local radio. Public consultation goes on at all stages of the development of ILR, right from the time that new areas are being selected by means of public meetings and the regular use of audience research. These direct methods of consultation between the authority and members of the public are supplemented by these local advisory committees appointed under Section 11 of the 1973 Act which, I think contrary to what the noble Lord was saying, provide an informed local view of the local radio services provided in their area and thus help the authority to identify local needs and interests.
The Committee might just be interested to be reminded that a third of the members of a local advisory committee are chosen from people nominated by appropriate local authorities, and the remainder are carefully chosen by the authority itself to reflect, so far as possible, the range of tastes and interests of persons residing in the area for which the committee is appointed. Methods of obtaining people to serve on the committee include the placing of advertisements in the local press. I say—as I have said before on the Bill—that nothing is perfect. I would not claim that for one moment. But, all in all, I really do believe that as much has

1379
been done as reasonably can be done to ensure that the existance and functions of local radio advisory committees are widely publicised.
The IBA's annual report lists the membership of each committee. Any changes in membership are advised by press notices. The members of local advisory committees are ordinary members of the public with an interest in the contribution which their local station can make to local life, and they are always pleased to receive comments on ILR programming from listeners. In my submission, it would be inequitable to apply provisions to one group of the authority's statutory advisory committees in isolation, and that is another reason why I should not like to see this written into the Bill.
I should like to make one last point, if I may. I am a little puzzled about the requirement in the amendment that the local advisory committees should:
"act in all respects independently of the Authority".
A local advisory committee is appointed by the IBA to give advice to it in respect of services of local radio provided in an area. That is its role and it cannot perform that role independently of the authority. But, that aside, I hope that I may have persuaded the Committee that there is not the need to set aside in statute these local radio advisory committees and treat them in a way entirely different from that in which the other committees which are advisory to the IBA on other broadcasting functions are treated. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his response to this amendment, which I shall read with great interest in Hansard. I shall consider whether some other form of amendment concerning the activities of the local advisory committees might or might not be advisable at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Duties of Authority with respect to programme contracts]:
6.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("of more than eight years") and insert ("exceeding the relevant maximum period").
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships agree, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 55. These apparently rather complicated amendments have a simple effect. They are designed to provide that in certain instances the maximum duration of a programme contract shall be 10 rather than eight years.
The need for this amendment arises from an undertaking which was given in another place that the Bill should place an obligation on the IBA to readvertise contracts when they come to an end. That obligation is to be included—if your Lordships agree—in Clause 23 by other amendments which I shall move in a little while. To establish an independent local radio station is an expensive business, and, now that the ILR network is extended to some of the less populated areas, intrinsically less profitable, so that the time it takes the new contractors serving these localities to cover their initial capital and to repay their losses is likely to be rather longer than has been the case with the stations already in existence. I shall try to explain any details if your Lordships wish, but that, basically, is the reason for these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I hope that the Government have got it right. Ten years seems an appropriate period of time for a local radio station in, say, Truro or one of the less populated areas of the country. It might be too long a period for some of the urban areas. On the whole, my view is that 10 years is the right period for a radio station which is on its first contract, but that if one had a situation where a station was a reapplicant, there would be a case for a shorter contract. The problem here of course, as we know, is that the initial costs of setting up a station are considerable, and it should be a sufficient period of time to enable a station, with all the different circumstances which may take place in different areas, to know that it has a period of tenure in which it can recoup those initial costs and move into a profitable state. That will be a shorter or a

1381
longer period of time according, very largely, to the franchise which the particular contractors have obtained.
I think that different criteria ought to apply to a reapplicant who will already have written off his initial costs in his first contract, and in his second contract a period of 10 years is perhaps too long a time. However, I accept that there would be difficulty in writing that sort of condition into the Bill.
In moving this amendment, the noble Lord also spoke to Amendments Nos. 53 and 55. I have a specific question to ask the noble Lord relating to Amendment No. 55. Is there anything in Amendment No. 55 which would prevent the IBA from saying that it wished to have an additional number of franchises in a particular area? For example, if the IBA decided that in London it was right to have not two franchises but three, four or five, is there anything in this particular amendment which would restrict the IBA from taking that decision? Indeed, I know that the Director of Radio of the IBA has already said that the authority has it in mind to look again at the nature of "conurban franchises"—which is not a very nice expression, but I understand that that is what he said and what, in fact, was given in evidence to the Annan Commission by the IBA. I should be pleased if the noble Lord could answer that specific question.
Lord WINSTANLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that he hoped the Government had got it right. Perhaps it is only fair that I should warn the noble Lord that I, personally, take the view at present that it is possible that on certain aspects the Government have got it wrong. However, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that I shall not weary your Lordships' Committee at length, particularly at a time when your Lordships' time is under very severe constraints. However, I think that I should put up a marker with regard to certain of my doubts.
It seems to me that collectively these amendments deal with what has come to be known as mandatory reselection. I listened to a number of arguments regarding mandatory reselection which emanated from Blackpool quite recently, and I think that I should tell the noble
1382
Lord that I was not entirely persuaded by them.
The point I want to make is that as regards local radio in particular—and here I should declare an interest, as a director of an independent local radio company—I believe that this mandatory requirement for reselection could lead to certain difficulties. If we look at the total number of independent local radio companies and the requirements under the revised dates which the noble Lord gave us, the authority would have a mandatory requirement to re-advertise the contracts for, what?—six stations in a year. That would be a considerable burden on the authority's resources—resources which are necessarily limited. It could possibly have another rather dangerous effect. By monopolising and over-stretching those particular resources, it might have the effect of slowing up the authority's work in bringing forward new stations in areas which at present cannot receive independent local radio and which perhaps are hoping for it.
There is another point which ought to be borne in mind and perhaps will be at a later stage when we will be dealing with this Bill. If the authority is finally and totally prohibited from ever allowing an existing contract to continue, despite the fact that it is satisfied with its work at that particular time, and therefore the authority knows or feels in its heart that it is going to renew the contract which at present exists, the mandatory requirement to re-advertise at that particular time could place a heavy burden on local investors who would be induced to get together in groups, go to an enormous amount of work and trouble in order to put forward what in the event are really fruitless bids.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on the first day of Committee said that, in so far as television contracts were concerned, the mandatory date of reselection was quite important. He told us that the way in which programmes started to improve as one came within two years of the deadline was quite remarkable. So far as television is concerned, it is also true that when one comes within two days of the reallocation of the franchises one will find a remarkable reluctance of television companies to invest major amounts of money in programme

1383
planning and making for a time. Sometimes this takes a very long time, and for a time which may be beyond the date on which they will be operating the franchise.
In so far as local radio is concerned, the authority at the moment exercises a close scrutiny over the independent local radio stations, and undoubtedly has the power to withdraw franchises and contracts at any time if it so wishes. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on his argument that really programmes should be improving all the time, there should not be suddenly a period like the period before a general election, which also has certain effects on people. There should not be a kind of blank period like that. There should be a continuing scrutiny. I hope that continuing scrutiny will go on.
I question for the moment this requirement to forbid the IBA ever to renew a contract without competition after the statutory period. I think that might possibly make the authority do its work less well than it now does. At the moment in this field I think we can trust the authority with its existing powers without hedging it in with specific dates and deadlines on a matter about which its resources are fairly limited and which causes a great deal of work. I merely make the point at the moment. Perhaps we shall return to it later.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I intervene for a moment? In moving the amendment I said that the need for the amendment arose from an undertaking which was given in another place that the Bill should place an obligation on the IBA to re-advertise contracts when they come to an end. I think I perhaps misled the Committee in a way, in that although that statement is true, of course the substance of the amendments I am moving, of which Amendment No. 55 is the really substantial one, refers to the consequences of that, which is that in Amendment No. 55 we are providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I think will approve, that first contracts in new independent local radio areas, and only new contracts, shall be given a 10-year period to run, and it is for contracts which start operating after 1st January 1980.
1384
From what I understood of what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, he will approve of that because he expressed doubt about other than new contracts being given this extra period to run. What it has meant is that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has spoken perhaps on what is a later amendment, No. 60, which we shall come to in a moment or two. It is when we come to Amendment No. 60 that I ought to try to reply to the points he made.
Lord CRATHORNE: I think I should also like to wait until we come to that amendment, in that case.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me a direct question, whether there was anything in Amendment No. 55 which would prevent the Independent Broadcasting Authority from having new stations within the area of existing stations. Although I am not going to say that I necessarily think that that would be desirable, there is nothing in Amendment No. 55 which would prevent that procedure from coming about. As the noble Lord is, I am sure, aware, recommendations for new local radio stations are in the first instance always put up by the Home Office Local Radio Working Party, which consists of representatives of the BBC, the IBA and the Home Office, with the final decision as to their licensing resting with the Home Secretary
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is there not a quite different question involved here? If you are setting up a local radio station in an area which is not touched at the moment by a local radio station, then that is quite all right because you have no interests which are being adversely affected thereby. But if you are dividing up an area which is already covered, as I imagine you would be doing if it was all "conurban", there are aspects where you would almost think that questions of compensation might arise.
Lord BELSTEAD: It was really for this reason that I said I would not make any comment on the merits of such a move, but I added that the recommendations for all establishment of local radio stations have to come from a working party on which the IBA, the BBC, and the Home Office are represented. Therefore, it is

1385
not for representatives of the Government to say whether they think that such a move would be desirable. Such recommendations come from the Home Office Local Radio Working Party.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 19, line 35, leave out ("is longer than eight years") and insert ("exceeds the relevant maximum period").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
("(c) to enable members of the public in the contract area concerned to question any applicant or re-applicant for a contract for that area.").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment there is, unfortunately, a printing error because it is in fact to amend page 20, line 6, to insert the word "there" and not on page 19, line 35. The numbers seem to have crept down from the noble Lord's earlier Amendment No. 53. In speaking to this amendment I should also like to speak—
Lord DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord give way? If that is so, ought we not to take page 19, line 38 first?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): If that is your Lordships' wish, I call Amendment No. 55.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 19, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the relevant maximum period is—

(a) ten years in the case of a contract taking effect on or after 1st January 1980 for the provision of local sound broadcasts in a locality—

(i) in which such broadcasts have not previously been provided by a programme contractor; or

(ii) in which such broadcasts have previously been so provided, but only in so much of it as in the opinion of the Authority does not amount to a substantial part of it;

(b) eight years in every other case.").

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 54.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drum-albyn, might still say that we ought to take Amendment No. 56.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes.
6.59 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 19, line 40, at end insert ("or locality").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, and would ask to speak to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 at the same time. This is a purely technical amendment. Section 12 of the Independent Broadcasting Act 1973 refers to the programmes of an ITV contractor as being provided for an area, but to those of an ILR contractor as being provided for a locality, hence the need for this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 19, line 42, leave out ("if they think fit").
The noble Lord said: I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 54 and 62. These three amendments deal with the question of the form of public meetings held by the authority and whether or not they should be held. The public attending such meetings in many cases attend with the impression that once there they will be able to question the proposed contractors about how they intend to exercise their prospective franchise. That is not so; people attending public meetings will find that they are able only to air their views and put their questions to IBA officials. Amendment No. 54 puts in the right of those attending public meetings to ask questions of the applicants or re-applicants. No. 57 makes it obligatory for the authority to hold such public meetings. I know the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is in favour of such meetings because at the last sitting

1387
of the Committee he said that speaking for the Government he believed that this kind of direct contact between broadcasters and the public was very valuable. The amendment would ensure that that always happened.
There have been widespread criticisms of the IBA's present form of meetings, and I would draw the attention of the Committee to articles in the New Statesman, Campaign and the Sunday Times about the conduct of such meetings. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is not in his place but whose knowledge of this issue we all respect, said on Second Reading there was some risk that these meetings could be packed by small unrepresentative groups which sometimes had close associations with one of the applicants for a licence, and he went on to say he felt it was clearly necessary for the system to be reviewed. In Amendment No. 62 we are seeking that review in that that amendment seeks for the authority to establish a code of practice, and asks that the IBA should, after consultation, draw up such a code. This course of action has support from existing contractors, other interested parties, local programme-making groups, pressure groups and consumer organisations.
One would imagine that such a code of practice would lay down provisions for determining the number, time and place of such public meetings, for ensuring the representation at such public meetings of as wide a range of public opinion as possible, for ensuring that those attending such public meetings are adequately informed of the policies and intentions of the applicants and re-applicants for the contract in the area concerned, and for providing for those attending such public meetings with the opportunity of questioning applicants and re-applicants. This is a matter about which there has been some public concern, and I hope the Minister will accept that there is a problem here which should be dealt with in the Bill.
Lord BELSTEAD: I suggest, with respect, that the noble Lord is trying to tie up the IBA in cotton wool rather too much with these amendments. Surely what matters is that people should have the chance when they feel deeply about a public matter either to object or have their say. I worked some years ago in a
1388
Government department which dealt with objections to secondary reorganisation schemes in education and the whole point so far as the general public was concerned was that there was a statutory right of objection. It was not set out as to exactly how people would object, but of course any local education authority worth its salt used to arrange for public meetings. Therefore when the noble Lord reminds me that I said on behalf of the Government that I strongly approved of public meetings being held, I do not resile from that and I entirely agree that that is the case, but to try to spell it out quite in the way this group of amendments does is going a little far.
I particularly think that when I look at Amendment No. 62, which requires a code of practice regulating public meetings to be drawn up. There are some very distinguished people in the broadcasting authorities these days and some of them come from the universities. I remember many years ago being taught by a Canon of the Cathedral of Christchurch, Oxford, who, when he held a lecture, could hold it sometimes in a very eccentric manner. I remember well that his house had as its staircase piles of books—because he did not know where else to put them—and the day came when he could not get out of his house at all. One day when he arrived at his lecture it was with the words, "I am sorry I am late, ladies and gentlemen. My housekeeper has just died. I have put a handkerchief on her face and she will be alright until I get back."
It would not be much good having a code of practice for the holding of public meetings when great and good people from the universities, as they do, help the IBA to hold their public gatherings, and I say seriously to the noble Lord that to start telling people who are running such an important broadcasting regulating authority as the IBA how they should run their meetings is going a little far. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my having replied to his amendment in the way I have and I hope he will not press it.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: It is not my intention to press the amendment. I will read the noble Lord's answer in the Official Report with interest. Unfortunately, I missed some of it as a result of consultations going on simultaneously

1389
through the usual channels, and once I have had the opportunity of considering what the noble Lord said I will decide whether I wish to return on Report with this or either of the other two amendments.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It might help if I were to point out to the noble Earl the Deputy Chairman that Amendment No. 54, not No. 57, is the first in the group to which my noble friend was speaking.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In that case I am happy to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 54.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (The Earl of Listowel): We must first, with the agreement of the Committee, deal with the amendment which has been moved; namely, No. 57. We can then go back to No. 54. The amendment actually moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was No. 57.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In that event I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 57.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord now wish to withdraw Amendment No. 54?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Technically I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 20, line 1, at end insert ("or locality").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 20, line 6, at end insert ("or locality").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 20, line 8, at end insert—
("(1AA) Before entering into any contract with a programme contractor for the provision of programmes in any area or locality the Authority shall publish, in such manner as they think fit, a notice—

(a) stating that they propose to enter into a contract for the provision of television programmes or, as the case may be, local sound broadcasts in that area or locality;

(b) stating the date from which it is proposed that the contract will take effect; and

(c) inviting applications for the contract.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 23 of the Bill is concerned, among other things, with the procedures that the IBA must adopt when it is awarding franchises to programme contractors. The clause already requires the authority to ascertain the opinion of the public in the area concerned about the service proposed and to encourage the making of comments and suggestions by members of the public. As the clause recognises, on a great number of occasions this will involve public meetings, but a requirement that we did not originally include in the Bill was that the franchises should always be advertised. Since this has already been mentioned at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and bearing in mind that my noble friend Lord Crathorne wants to say something about it, I shall say no more in moving the amendment beyond adding that I beg to move.
Lord CRATHORNE: I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead would think about the practical effects of this proposal. I do not think that in effect it will work frightfully well. The IBA has an ability to bring a contract to an end, and that seems to be working extremely well. The IBA inspects each contractor each year and writes a report each year to the contractor. If, for instance, there is an effective contractor who receives a good report every year, at the end of an eight year period it does not seem very likely that the IBA will not re-award that contract. That is one point.
The other point is that there is no doubt that it will create much additional work for the IBA, and the feeling that a number of people have is that it is really unnecessary work. I shall not speak any longer, since I know that we are anxious to continue. Those were just the two points that I wanted to make.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: I wish to declare an interest as a director of Anglia Television. I should like to throw a little light if I may on the purely practical nature of the effect of the amendment. If the contract is for eight years, it is very important to bear in mind what happens during those eight years. I should like to start at the back, year eight. If the IBA awarded a contract to a new applicant and deposed the incumbent, then the year eight of the eight years that we are talking about could well be a sort of completely dead period so far as the programme service is concerned. I am not saying that the service would not go on, but a deposed contractor would not be full of tremendous zest or zeal in producing a programme service during the eighth year.
Now we come back to year seven, that is the year we are now in in the ITV industry; a hiatus period of tremendous trauma and upheaval, which does nothing to improve and help the service. So in a sense years seven and eight could well be the rather bad or dead two years of great distraction.
However let us say that all is going well in year five, and I should like to take it back to the beginning when a new contractor has got his station to start, and it is year one. I would say that it would take at least year one for any new contractor to get into his stride, though there is ample evidence that it takes two years, and there have been occasions when a contractor has had to reform and start again.
So I am suggesting to your Lordships' Committee that we might be talking about a period of only four years of smooth running, not eight years. If that is so, may I simply add that out of the 15 year period of the IBA's existence under the new legislation, that leaves only seven years. So in that seven-year period we are talking of perhaps only three years smooth running.
I think it is very important that these practical aspects should be understood, though I am not trying to present a lobby for either a contractor or my own company, and I certainly shall not myself still be interested. I simply want your Lordships and my noble friend to understand what the effect will be. There will not be eight good years and seven good years; there will be four with a good deal of doubt, and three with a good deal of doubt.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to reply to both my noble friends Lord Buxton of Alsa and Lord Crathorne by saying that the Bill simply puts into effect what, as we know, the IBA does at present. It looks very carefully at who will be the contenders. We believe that it should be put in statutory form. With regard to what my noble friend Lord Buxton said, there is not the slightest reason why the IBA, having complied with the conditions of the amendment—if your Lordships agree to it—will not find itself letting the contracts to the same contractor again after a seven- or eight-year period.
With regard to the second point made by my noble friend Lord Crathorne, the workload should not be over-emphasised. We are talking about a maximum of an eight-year period for television contracts; they do not have to be as long as that. So far as the advertising of the local radio contracts is concerned, I say to my noble friend that as a matter of fact they are going to be so formed that they will be spread over a period of years.
Lord WINSTANLEY: The noble Lord undertook to reply to the points that I put to him on this particular matter.
Lord BELSTEAD: I was under the impression that what I had said when I was replying to my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa and to the first point of my noble friend Lord Crathorne covered to a considerable extent the apprehensions that the noble Lord voiced. May I reiterate, This is a practice in which the IBA has, quite rightly, been indulging over the years. We thought it right that it should be put in statutory form. We thought it quite wrong—and, incidentally, if I may say so, I think unfair to the IBA—to make it appear that there was no question that contracts were not open to tender. They are open to tender. That is what the IBA in fact does, and we believe that it is only fair both to the IBA and to competitors in the broadcasting field that this should now be put in statute.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 18, at end insert ("or (1AA)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord DENHAM: I must apologise for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box, but in moving that the House do resume I should like to say to the Committee that I shall be making a business statement immediately the House is resumed. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a business statement to say that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the remaining part of the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill will be taken next Monday.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, can we be assured that it will be first business?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, one cannot do that without consulting the noble Lords concerned, but I am fairly confident of getting the right answer from them.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
7.20 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): 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 Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No.284B:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("PART XVIA CARAVAN SITES
Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies
There are hereby repealed—

(a) in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1968 (limitation of duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies and provision for exemption), the words from "and the Minister" to the end"; and

(b) section 190(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (certain exemptions from the duty mentioned in paragraph (a) above to be continued in force).").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 284C, 284D, 284E, 284F, 284G, 320A, 320Band 326A, as they all deal with the duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites, the designation of areas and provisions for the removal of unlawfully parked caravans from designated areas. I think and hope that these new clauses will be acceptable to everyone, as most of them were in the Labour Government's Caravan Sites Bill, which fell at the Dissolution, and the first Local Government, Planning and Land Bill; and also the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who I do not see in his place, has similar amendments down in his name.
The first new clause, Amendment No. 284B, repeals the power of the Secretary of State to grant exemptions from the duty to provide sites on the grounds of lack of suitable land. It is also proposed to repeal the exemptions that were granted to 26 previous county borough areas, because they have no gipsy population. This is as proposed in the original Local Government Planning and Land Bill, of this Government. The reason for these repeals is that gipsies have come into and nearer towns much more than they used because of their scrap metal trade, and so on, and more provision is thought to be necessary. The amendment is also made for reasons of equity.
Amendment No. 284C replaces the old Section 11 of the 1968 Act, and deals with the arrangements whereby an authority in an area which has been designated

1395
can have caravans which are parked in other than the proper sites removed. It gives that authority a little more power: it increases the fine for someone who intentionally obstructs any person acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section from a maximum of £20 to a maximum of £200, which seems reasonable 12 years later.
I think the new clause is self-explanatory. Noble Lords will have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put down an amendment to subsection (1) of this clause, which of course he will explain in due course, but it may expedite matters if I say that we are happy to accept it.
Amendment No. 284D is really the nub of the matter. Subsection (2) makes it possible for a district, with the consent of the county council, to be designated before the county as a whole is designated. This is not in line with the Cripps Report, which recommends designation on a county basis, but the local authorities, I understand, are now agreed on the desirability of designation on a district basis so long, of course, as the plans conform to the overall plan for the provision of sites in the whole county. One hopes that this may prove an incentive, and help get a very necessary move on.
I should like to ask the Minister what has happened to the recommendation in paragraph 4.40 of Cripps, that the Secretary of State should allocate a quota to each county and seek agreement on a time-related programme of site provision to fulfil it. Amendment No. 284E seeks to enable a county council to provide a site on its own land without having to seek a licence from the district council. At present, the county council has to apply to the district, which could use this stage to frustrate provision by the imposition of unreasonable conditions, and maybe hold up the whole operation. I am quite sure that any noble Lords who have served on a county council social services committee and have spent long hours discussing possible sites, trying to agree on them and trying to get the locals to agree on them, will welcome any change in legislation which can hasten the decision, and therefore provision, in any way.
Amendments Nos. 284F and 284G deal with the interpretation and commencement and extent. It will be noticed that only one clause, the site licence exemption, Amendment No. 284E, applies to Scotland. I think my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock is not here, or doubtless he would be commenting later on this. Amendments Nos. 320A and 320B deal with the mechanics of this. Amendment No. 326A makes the necessary addition to the Long Title of the Bill so that these new clauses can be included.
I have introduced these amendments very briefly, as I am all too aware of the pressure of time. What we hope to achieve is greater co-operation on site provision. Indeed, what we want is more sites and a better and more settled situation for the gipsies, with the possibility of a satisfactory life for them where they will not be harried from place to place; where their children, if they want it, can have the chance of a proper education; and where, as Cripps put it, they will have the right of legal abode.
A previous clause in this Bill, Clause 61, we have already agreed. It enables the Secretary of State to make grants for capital expenditure on caravan sites. I should like to ask the Minister replying: what is the policy of the Government on site provision and the paying of grants at this moment? I have heard of approval for a site being given and then later withdrawn, and obviously, therefore, the grant is withdrawn, too. It is not much use including in Bills clauses like Clause 61 if the Government intend to make no use of them.
Is it true that there has been a general moratorium on all further starts for caravan sites for travellers? I want an answer about this from the Minister. May I also ask the Minister to let us have, before Report stage, the most recent figures on authorised sites in England and Wales, and the number of families and caravans accommodated?—and it would be helpful to have the lists of families and caravans in separate forms. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I rise to say that the district councils, who bear responsibility for managing these sites, very much welcome these amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 284D.
Lord DIGBY: I should like to support this amendment on behalf of the Association of County Councils, because my noble friend Lord Ridley has tabled almost identical amendments, which I shall not move should this amendment be successful. I shall not repeat the noble Baroness's cogent arguments, but I should like to highlight one particular aspect, which is the importance of Amendment No. 284D, which enables the Secretary of State to designate districts for prohibiting unauthorised camping instead of waiting for the whole county area to have sufficient sites. My county of Dorset is the only one so far designated, but I must tell your Lordships, as chairman of the committee which provided these sites, that it was very frustrating when, having covered more than 80 per cent, of the county, we still had to wait a long time before designation. I think the facts speak for themselves. Twelve years after this Act was enacted, only one county has been designated. I am sure that if we can proceed by districts it will be of great advantage.
I should like to add a short word on the criminal sanctions which have been in force. This amendment puts them back into the Bill. Our experience in Dorset, as the only county where they are applied at present, is that providing they are there, they do not need to be used. Like the fence, its existence helps to avoid its use. If the gipsy liaison officers, who are a vital part of this human relations problem, have the sanction behind them, they do not need to use it—and they have been a great success. They are much better with the authority; they do not have to wield the stick. This amendment was in the No. 1 Bill. It was agreed by both the local authority associations and the gipsy association. I hope the Government will feel able to accept it.
Lord DA VIES of LEEK: From this side of the Committee I should like briefly to support my noble friend. In Staffordshire, where I had the honour to be the local Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century, there are 91 unauthorised sites and, according to the figures that I have officially, 72 authorised sites. I hope that ultimately this muddle can be cleared up. I think it is good that this was put into the Bill and that some attention will be paid for it.
Lord AVEBURY: I must apologise in advance for detaining your Lordships at greater length than have some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is because there is a great deal of meat in these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. They should not be allowed to pass without some examination and, I am sorry to say, in certain respects, criticism. If one looks first at Amendment No. 284B, the Caravan Sites Bill of the last Government—which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, whom I am glad to see is in her place—repealed the whole of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1968 Act. As the noble Baroness pointed out when moving the Second Reading of that Bill, it was proposed at that time to abolish the limit on the duty of the metropolitan county councils and the London boroughs to provide for only 15 caravans in each district or borough as well as to repeal the power of the Secretary of State to grant exemptions from the duty to provide any sites on the grounds of lack of suitable land. It was then further proposed to repeal the exemptions that were granted to 26 county boroughs because they had had no gipsy population in the five years prior to 1st April, 1968.
That was in exact accordance with the recommendations of Sir John Cripps, as was the undertaking given by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government at that time, that none of the inner London boroughs would be obliged to provide sites for more than 15 caravans. In these amendments the 15-pitch limit has, in effect, reappeared; but, because of the 1972 reorganisation, it would now apply to the metropolitan counties which are far larger and richer in resources than the old county boroughs. It would be disproportionate to lay such a trivial obligation on them to provide only 15 pitches compared with the counties, which have an open-ended obligation to satisfy the demand for accommodation by all gipsies resorting to their areas. My amendments to Amendment 284B are designed to remove the 15-pitch exemption in the same way as was done by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in the Caravan Site Bill which she introduced before the I election.

1399
Turning to Amendment No. 284C, this represents a considerable departure from the Cripps Report which merely suggested that the various proposals for strengthening the enforcement powers in Section 11 of the 1968 Act should be examined by a lawyer—and that is what he said—but that if there were to be any move towards complying with the demands which the local authorities were making at that time, it should be conditional upon a proviso that, in relation to unoccupied land, the powers should be exercisable only if the land was required immediately for some other purpose or if vacant places were shown to be available on a site within a reasonable distance. Sir John Cripps also said in relation to camping on the verges of highways that enforcement should be allowed only where there was a specific danger to traffic or where space was shown to be available within a reasonable distance. As drafted, this clause would allow caravans to be removed on the authority of the magistrates' court if the court is satisfied that the caravans were parked on land unlawfully; and the order of the court may be applied indiscriminately to any caravans on the land whether or not they can be identified personally and without any proceedings having been taken first under Section 10, which contains the criminal sanctions against parking in designated areas.
It was at one time thought desirable to remove the criminal sanction (as the noble Lord opposite will confirm) and it was then pointed out that, if you did that, you would sweep away the defences which are now available, giving the local authorities an unchallengeable right to clear gipsies from any land in designated areas. I am not happy about giving local authorities these new powers and I was certainly unaware of any process of examination of the proposals such as Cripps had recommended. But, if we have to consent to what is proposed here, we should restore the defences of Section 10 to enable a gipsy to plead that his caravan was stationed on the land in question in consequence of illness, or mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency. My amendments are intended to secure that a contravention of Section 10 must be proved before the courts may grant any order to permit the removal of any caravans.
1400
Because I have left in the words which extend the power to caravans not individually identified in any order of the court, I am afraid that, even with those concessions, serious injustice could arise, and it is no exaggeration to say that life might be endangered in certain circumstances. The authority must first proceed against an individual occupier of a caravan on the land; but once the conviction has been secured against such a person, then any other caravan on the same land will be in contravention of Section 10 and may be towed away on the order of the court without further safeguard for their occupants. The council might proceed against a particular gipsy because he is easily identifiable by name and can be brought to court, but they may be unaware of the fact that in the next caravan there is a case of serious illness. They get their conviction and return to the site with the bailiffs, the bulldozers and an army of council officials to remove the invalid along with all the rest, being perhaps completely unaware that any health risk has arisen. If anybody tries to stop the removal of the caravan in which a gipsy may be lying even at death's door, he runs the risk of being prosecuted under subsection (4) of the new clause and fined £200. On Report, it would be desirable—and I should have given the noble Baroness notice, but it is a point that occurred to me rather late—to make provision for the person who is accused of obstruction under that subsection to be able to offer a similar defence to that which Section 10 provides for unlawful parking; that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the caravan that he had tried to stop being removed was occupied by someone who was there for any of the stated reasons—health, mechanical breakdown or other emergency.
Turning to Amendment 284D which, as the noble Baroness confessed was not in line with the Cripps Report—in fact their specific recommendation was that designation continued to be granted only on a county basis to authorities who have a duty to acquire or appropriate land to accommodate gipsies—I am not happy about the idea of extending this concept to districts, as I said when we were considering at Second Reading the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, from which this particular amendment is copied.

1401
I quoted then from the original Circular 37/70 which was issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when Part II of the 1968 Act was brought into force, following the assurances which had been given by the late Mr. Arthur Skeffington, the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The circular said that Ministers intended:
"to exercise their powers to designate … in such a way to avoid creating a patchwork of relatively small areas where it would be an offence for a gipsy to camp. Such a pattern would create a difficult position for the councils of adjoining areas and a confused one for the gipsies themselves".
Designation does not act as an incentive to other authorities, as was claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when we were discussing the first designation orders on 14th November, 1972. I thought I heard the noble Baroness, Lady David, repeating this canard this evening, that designation provided an incentive.
I said then in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (at col. 698 of Hansard for 14th November 1972):
"It is just a pious hope, and the logic of expecting them to get on with their duties as a result of designation orders made in county boroughs that are in their neighbourhood escapes me for the moment".
We were talking in that context about St. Helens in particular. I should like to examine what happened in the North-West as a result of the designation of that particular county borough. At that time, 14th November 1972, I gave the figures of provision already made in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and this is to be found at col. 669 of Hansard of that date.
There were then 73 pitches in that area compared with an estimated 525 families there. If we look now at a count which was taken by the local authorities on 16th July this year, and recorded by the Department of the Environment, we find that there are now 95 pitches on council sites in the area; so there has been an increase of only 22 sites in the whole of Lancashire and Greater Manchester during the intervening eight years compared with the 204 pitches which the local authorities in that area told the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that they were going to provide. The Committee will be obliged to agree that this is a deplorable record, and it proves that the designation of St. Helens
1402
had no beneficial effect on the neighbouring authorities.
The fact is, if one looks at the figures, that no county has provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area, including Dorset which the noble Lord mentioned. The record of Dorset is certainly very much better than that of most other authorities. In the July count there were still 33 gipsies living on unauthorised sites in the county. Therefore it cannot be said, as is required in the 1968 Act, that the county provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies resorting to the area, even if the basic provision the county made satisfied the demand from those who were there more permanently.
If I may take one or two examples, last night a noble Lord who lives in Surrey was complaining to me about the mess which gipsies made in that county. They have 150 pitches on authorised sites and 152 on unauthorised sites. In Kent they have 166 authorised pitches and 382 unauthorised. In Essex they have 102 authorised and 254 unauthorised. In Northamptonshire they have 16 authorised and 63 unauthorised.
Looking at those figures, we must ask: What is going to happen in counties such as those if one designates a district or group of districts within those counties? First, the gipsies will obviously be unaware as they travel from one place to another whether they are lawfully entitled to stop in a particular place. Secondly, the districts which have been given the powers will decamp their surplus gipsy populations into the neighbourhood, just as St. Helens did into Lancashire eight years ago. Thirdly—and most important—we should be creating a situation which Ministers have repeatedly said in their circulars should be avoided. For example, in Circular 49/68 it says:
"… the Ministers nave repeatedly emphasised that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on from place to place until sites have been provided for them. It is particularly important that local authorities should not drive gipsies out of their areas, to become the responsibility of neighbouring authorities, in the period before a countrywide network of sites is established".
As I ventured to say when discussing the Bill of the noble Baroness—and I was, very glad to hear the noble Baroness Lady David, say this this evening—the recommendations in paragraph 4.40 of

1403
Cripps are potentially of greater importance than any of the legislative provisions we were then discussing or which are contained in these amendments. If we had an agreement between the Government and the local authorities on quotas for each county, and a time-related programme to fulfil them, then we would be able to measure progress against some objective criteria instead of thinking so much in negative terms, as we seem to, about the methods of social control of what is an unpopular minority.
That was the key to the solution. If I had my way there would be no designation at all until the local authorities had agreed to these quotas and the timetable which Sir John Cripps proposed. That would give them an incentive to get on with the job. Perhaps the movers of this amendment would consider driving such a bargain before Report stage, and whether or not it is possible somehow to incorporate the idea which the noble Baroness has commended in these amendments.
There are two drafting errors in Amendment No. 284D. In subsection (3) the words "in the order" should be replaced by "therein" because adequate provision has to be made in the area and not in the order by the magistrates' court. In subsection (6) after "area" in the last line I think the words "of the council" should be inserted to make it clear that there is an obligation not only to notify the gipsies in a district which has received the designation power—if we have finally to agree to that—but also that those gipsies who live in other parts of the county who may be equally affected should be informed as well.
In Amendment No. 284G I notice that the new power to remove unlawfully parked caravans comes into effect three months after the passing of the Bill, but the exemptions of the 26 county borough areas are to be continued for another 12 months. I suggest that perhaps there should be some harmonisation between these two periods.
Whatever we do in the field of legislation, the solution of the gipsy problem lies in some new spirit of determination by local authorities and the Government. The whole of the unaccommodated gipsy population of this country could be taken care of on authorised sites for the cost of
1404
four new town halls or one five-hundredth of the amount that we are intending to spend on the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent. One can only be amazed that it should take so long and that progress should be at such a funereal pace. The explanation of it is that the gipsies are not a powerful lobby themselves and their cause is a loser for anybody who takes it up, while the chairman of a local residents' association or a councillor who opposes a site can always pick up a few cheap votes.
It still has not dawned on the public as a whole, or indeed perhaps on some of the Members of the Committee, that official sites that are kept tidy and properly managed under the control of the local authority are infinitely preferable to the mess that gipsies make—quite unavoidably—on the unauthorised encampments that we so often see. Nor is it realised that by harrying the gipsies from pillar to post, and thus preventing their children from attending school, we are storing up trouble for yet another generation. However belatedly, I hope that this will provide an occasion for saying once again that we want Ministers, councillors, leaders and friends of the gipsy community to join together in spelling out those truths and starting a new campaign to ensure that there are sites for all the gipsies in the country.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to support my noble friend in her amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to the comments made by him and by myself when the previous Government's Bill was before the House. We only got to the Second Reading stage and then had an Election. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury was sufficiently of a realist, as I am, to know that it does not necessarily follow that a succeeding Government has the same views about a subject in exactly the same way as the one that went before it. I think my noble friends are to be congratulated on the consultations that they have had with the department to see how far they can get along the lines which we had hoped to go along but, for heaven's sake! let us, if the Government are willing to accept it, get something on the statute book and then build on it in the future.

1405
The subject of designation has been a very thorny problem in my own area where our city and our district have done a lot to help gipsies. We have one very high-standard site for some 22 families, with educational facilities attached to it. We have another one, not quite so good, for 50 families, which will house all who come into our city, apart from peak periods when they are travelling between agricultural jobs just for a few days at a time.
Much to our surprise and delight, we received only a few weeks ago from the county council via the Department of the Environment a grant of £500,000 for the improvement of this second site, which would then have brought us up to standard, and the county would have been willing to have supported the designation of our part of the area. For some reason our Conservative Member of Parliament managed to persuade the Minister to withhold it for the time being while he had another look at it, and in the meantime there was a further round of cuts and we have lost it. We feel very strongly about it and, quite frankly, if the noble Earl can take that back to his department and have a look at it, I would make a special plea for the reinstatement of as much of that grant as he can manage.
On the question of designation, it is important because it would empower the police to remove the unauthorised encampment and it would avoid the need on the part of district councils to take quite costly and often repetitive county court proceedings. I am quite sure that if the police, at any rate in our own area—and I can only speak of that—find there are special circumstances, there is not the harassment to which the noble Lord referred. The police are reasonable, and, if there is a woman in labour or someone who is very ill, they adopt a responsible attitude about that.
If you have the proper regulation of the unauthorised encampments then you get a very considerable saving in local authority funds, and that aspect certainly ought to appeal to this Government. If you have a countrywide plan for the sites for these gipsy encampments, it will take time and may have to be programmed over some five or six years, but it is unjust towards those district councils which have provided adequate accommodation that,
1406
when they have done their duty in that way, they should not then be able to claim designation. I think if a firm commitment was made at this stage by the Secretary of State to designate individual districts, it would be an incentive to the county councils to get on and do the job throughout their county, and to other district councils, which would then perhaps receive some of the unlawful campers, to be a little more progressive and to something about it themselves. I support my noble friend in her amendments.
The Earl of AVON: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to clarify one thing. He said fairly early on in his speech something about "Amendment 284B and some amendments to it". If there are any, I have not seen them.
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, I did in fact mislead your Lordships. I had intended to put down an amendment to Amendment 284B, removing the 15-pitch limit. I omitted to do that but hasten to declare that I shall rectify that on Report stage.
The Earl of AVON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is rather difficult to answer on certain points of this kind. May I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I think we should be speaking to Amendment 318A as well as the ones she mentioned? It is only a small technical one on the schedule. I am happy to commend all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, which were so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness. These are Nos. 284B through to G, 318A, 320A and B, together with 326A. I am happy to recommend these to the Committee, together with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to Amendment No. 284C, which are Amendments Nos. 284CB through to 284CE. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Ridley has also put down some amendments, which are Amendments Nos. 296 to 299, 299A and 327. I am afraid that I cannot recommend these, but I shall come to them later.
As this Committee may have realised, versions of all these amendments were contained in our original Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They are therefore not a party political issue and in this context, though it is hardly necessary, I would remind your Lordships that

1407
we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for placing the 1968 Act on the statute Book.
The original proposals were themselves the result of the fullest possible consultation by the department. There was a round of consultations about recommendations of the Cripps Report with all conceivable interested parties. They gave a clear indication of the nature of the legislative changes required on this subject. In particular they showed a need for further study of possible changes which will make the enforcement powers more effective. Eventually after a further round of discussions with the local authority associations and gipsy representatives and their support organisations, agreement was reached last year upon an overall package of changes. However, these proposals were deleted from the Bill by the need to shorten it for reintroduction in another place. During progress in the other place Ministers have declared their continued support in principle for the original proposals and their readiness to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill should it be procedurally possible to reintroduce them. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, the noble Baroness and others have been able to make use of the period since then to bring forward proposals which contain broadly not only the original proposals but also some improved and acceptable drafting changes, as well as taking into account the latest views of the local authority associations on some of the issues.
These amendments have embraced the repeal of exemptions of certain authorities from the duty of site provision, changes in enforcement procedures in areas designated under the 1968 Act and proposals for designations in districts and the exemption of site-providing authorities throughout Great Britain for any requirements for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Perhaps I may briefly speak on the first of the queries of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which was: what are we doing about the Cripps Report? That concerns paragraph 4.40. This recommendation was never seen as an item requiring legislative changes. Such discussion on time-related quotas requires
1408
administrative arrangements for a programme of planned discussion. I understand that such a programme was started by the department soon after the publication of the Cripps Report. Such discussions, I am afraid, are not now consistent with the Government's view of the necessary relationship between central and local government on gipsies. As you know, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies by way of caravan sites. It is for them to decide the number and nature of such sites and not for central Government to impose any targets. Of course, they do consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation, and this can be the subject of useful discussion.
Lord AVEBURY: I do not think it was ever suggested by Cripps that the targets should be imposed by central Government on local authorities, but that if, as a result of the discussion process the total of the provisions which the counties intended to make, as notified to the Government, did not add up to the same figures as the known population, there could be another round of consultations to see whether any improvements could be effected in the contributions of individual authorities. So the process would be consultative rather than compulsory.
The Earl of AVON: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I rather agree that it is consultative: that is really what I was saying.
Baroness DAVID: May I intervene for a moment? If the Minister is going to make the designation, it seems to me that if generally they do not have an overall plan, with quotas and so on, it is very difficult to make a sensible decision on designation.
The Earl of AVON: If the noble Baroness will let me get a little further, I think that I shall come to that point. If I do not, I ask her to get at me again. They do, of course, consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation and this can be the subject of useful discussion. But the initiative must come from local government and we do not wish to interfere by central

1409
Government decisions upon quotas of sites and programmes of development.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me some more specific questions. First, she asked about the amount available for grants. It is, of course, inevitably limited and as a result we have had to scrutinise expenditure carefully. Owing to heavy expenditure in the first quarter of the year, we had to suspend grants for a limited period. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that, as a result of a downturn in expenditure in the second quarter, we have now been able to lift the temporary suspensions. That sounds like what was being talked about.
I have some figures for caravans which seem rather to support some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, produced. Caravans on unauthorised encampments are 4,792, on authorised local authority sites 2,975 and on private sites 1,185. These are figures at July 1980. Figures on numbers of families are less precise and do not relate simply to numbers of caravans, but I shall write to the noble Baroness with more details.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has also tabled amendments which seek to reintroduce our original proposals and almost entirely as we originally drafted them. So we accept the principle behind his proposals, but now prefer the drafting proposed in the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, which is a Mark II version, as opposed to the noble Viscount's and our own Mark I version. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendments when they touch upon the same subject.
I should now like to come to a couple of paragraphs which I think will clarify quite a number of the points which have been made. I said earlier that this is a package, and the aim of the package is to try to expedite action on one of the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Act of 1968; namely, the provision by local authorities of an adequate network of sites for gipsies throughout the country. This aim must surely still be acceptable to all sides of this Chamber.
Nevertheless, experience of the working of the 1968 Act showed that it was being very slow in achieving this aim. Accordingly, the previous Administration
1410
asked Sir John Cripps to see how this aim might be expedited. His recommendations in 1977 were broadly accepted by the then Government. I understand that this decision was then followed by extensive consultations on these recommendations with both the local authority associations and all gipsy and other interested organisations. I have a long list of details of those consultations and they led eventually, as I said, to an agreed package which was first introduced into this House as the Caravan Sites Bill. Although that Bill fell because of the 1979 general election, its proposals were largely repeated in our No. 1 local government Bill and now appear in a further revised form before your Lordships tonight.
These proposals should expedite the achievement of this aim—and that is why noble Lords should really accept them with gladness—by the provision of grant towards the capital cost of sites provided by local authorities, and by providing for districts instead of whole counties being designated as having provided an adequate number of sites. Nevertheless, to encourage authorities to provide such sites, it seems only right that those who do so should be given more effective powers to deal with gipsies who camp on unauthorised sites in designated areas. Hence this package of proposals, all of which should benefit law-abiding gipsies.
Some few days ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put down Amendment No. 129, which we rather brushed aside and I promised to say a few words on it. This was a proposed re-introduction of a specific power to pay grants to voluntary organisations. The Government accept the need to encourage the activities of voluntary organisations which are doing useful work in this field and already give certain bodies modest grant-aid. This is now provided on a non-statutory basis through the use of the prerogative powers. We will continue to provide such aid as is appropriate and within our resources and I prefer to see the grant remain on its present basis.
Since noble Lords, last week, raised the question of Scotland, I should just like to make the following points. First, the grants proposed in Clause 61 on gipsy caravan sites will apply to Scotland. Secondly, although the 1968 Act of the

1411
noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not apply to Scotland, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does. This latter Act enables Scottish authorities to provide sites. This Act also sets out the licensing requirements for such sites; hence Amendment No. 284E of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, to extend the proposals for the exemption of county councils in England and Wales to regional councils in Scotland.
I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 284G, on which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented. It is about the timings on commencement proposed by the Government in the original Bill. The three-month period before commencement of alterations to enforcement procedures is intended to give the Home Office time to propose and issue advice to the magistrates' courts that might be needed. A delay of 12 months in the repeal of exemptions from site provision requirements, enjoyed by some previous county borough areas, was advised by the local authority associations, in order to allow adequate discussion between county and district councils about programmes for site provision, without any prejudgement that the provision of sites is imperative in all cases. The remainder of the Bill comes into effect within one month of Royal Assent. I have probably spoken enough, and, if I may sum up, the Government are happy to accept the amendments to which I originally spoke and also the amendment to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, replies—and I should not like to strike a note that does not fit in with the general harmony—I should merely like to say, having seen the appalling mess and destruction that confronts one on certain motorways or side roads, that I hope that the noble Lord is always talking about the genuine Romany. There are people who are not genuine gipsies and I thought that he spoke in a slightly derogatory way about the residents.
I have had many deputations from residents in areas where they are genuinely distressed by the kind of people who camp in fields behind them, then go away leaving total destruction and all kinds of rubbish which is never collected by
1412
anyone. I am sure that the noble Lord was talking about the genuine gipsies, but I thought we should be clear in our minds about whom we are talking when we say that local authorities must designate areas and provide accommodation, because people who buy houses in certain areas also have rights.
Lord AVEBURY: It is not for me to reply to the amendments, but, if I may enlighten the noble Baroness, a "gipsy" according to the definition in the 1968 Act, is a person of nomadic habit, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. That means, for example, that the Irish tinkers are equally gipsies within the meaning of that Act, as is the true Romany. I did not, with great respect, single out the true Romany for attention in the remarks that I made, because the provision which I am suggesting local authorities ought to be making, and which should have been included in the programme recommended by Sir John Cripps in paragraph 440 of his report, applied equally to everybody who lived in caravans, whether they were Romany in origin or not.
I also made reference to the mess that gipsies make, and I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to residents. I hope that I was not dismissive of the work which many of them do, which is of great value to their neighbourhoods. But what I did say was that, sometimes, the chairmen of residents were able to get cheap, popular support by condemning gipsies in the neighbourhood, whereas the correct solution is to agitate with the local authorities for the provision of the sites which would render these unauthorised encampments unnecessary.
The mess which gipsies make is always on the unauthorised sites because they are not properly controlled and because no enforcement clean-up procedures can be achieved. While they are on the roadside, or on vacant land, or on land without the permission of the owner they make a great deal of mess because there are no facilities for refuse collection. Nor are there any sanitary facilities. Inevitably, there is an unsightly heap of rubbish in the neighbourhood of the caravans. Once you get them on to authorised sites where there are proper facilities for washing and where the local authority can collect the refuse, those problems are eliminated. That is why I tried to emphasise at the end

1413
of my speech that the sooner people realise that the removal of the unauthorised encampments is dependent upon the provision of an adequate, countrywide network of sites, the sooner we will get on with solving the problem.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I do not want to debate the point with the noble Lord, but the rubbish is not only on the sites; it spreads along the edges of the motorways. It is not domestic rubbish but pieces of cars which they have dismantled. These people are not living in poverty. We are talking about people who are living in caravans of great luxury. I do not deny them that right, but I think that the people who live in those areas also have rights.
Lord AVEBURY: I agree with the noble Baroness once again that the scrap remnants which result from the processing of old cars and so on create an unsightly mess on the borders of main roads. For that reason, it is important that the permissive powers contained in the 1968 Act to provide working areas in the neighbourhood of residential sites should also be properly utilised by the local authorities.
Baroness DAVID: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I was particularly glad to hear that the moratorium is off for the moment. I should be interested to hear more details about that. I am very grateful for what we have got and to hear that the amendments have been accepted. Tomorrow I shall read the debate in Hansard, particularly with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. There may then be further amendments at the Report stage, but may I thank the noble Lord for what we have.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): With your Lordships' permission, I will take all these amendments as having been moved.
On Question, Amendment No. 284B agreed to.
Amendment No. 284C moved—
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants
. For section 11 of the Act of 1968 (removal of unlawful encampments), there is substituted the following section:—
11.—(1) In any area to which section 10 of this Act applies, a magistrates' court may, on a complaint made by a local authority, and if satisfied that a caravan is unlawfully parked on land within that authority's area, make an order requiring any caravan (whether or not identified in the order) which is unlawfully parked on the land to be removed together with any person residing in it.
(2) An order under this section may authorise the local authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the order is complied with and in particular, may authorise the authority, by its officers and servants—

(a) to enter upon the land specified in the order; and

(b) to take, in relation to any caravan to be removed pursuant to the order, such steps for securing entry and rendering it suitable for removal as may be so specified.

(3) The local authority shall not enter upon any occupied land unless they have given to the owner and occupier at least 24 hours notice of their intention to do so, or unless after reasonable inquiries they are unable to ascertain their names and addresses.
(4) A person who intentionally obstructs any person acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(5) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be guilty of an offence under this section.
(6) Where a complaint is made under this section, a summons issued by the court requiring the person or persons to whom it is directed to appear before the court to answer to the complaint may be directed—

(a) to the occupant of a particular caravan parked on the land in question; or

(b) to all occupants of caravans parked there,

without naming him or them.
(7) Where it is impracticable to serve such a summons on a person named in it, it shall be treated as duly served on him if a copy of it is fixed in a prominent place to the caravan con cerned; and where such a summons is directed to the unnamed occupants of caravans, it shall be treated as duly served on those occupants if a copy of it is fixed in a prominent place to every caravan parked on the land in question at the time when service is thus effected.
(8) The local authority shall take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to secure that a copy of any such summons is displayed on the land in question (otherwise than by being fixed to a caravan) in a manner designed to ensure that it is likely to be seen by any person camping on the land.
(9) Notice of any such summons shall be given by the local authority to the owner of the land in question and to any occupier of that land unless, after reasonable inquiries, the authority is unable to ascertain the name and address of the owner or occupier; and the owner of any such land and any occupier of any such land shall be entitled to appear and to be heard in the proceedings.
(10) Section 55(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (warrant for arrest of defendant failing to appear) does not apply to proceedings on a complaint made under this section.".").
Amendments Nos. 284CB, 284CC, 284CD and 284CE to Amendment No. 284C moved:
In subsection (1)—

(a) leave out ("unlawfully parked on land within that authority's area") and insert ("stationed on land within that Authority's area in contravention of that section");

(b) leave out second ("unlawfully parked") and insert ("so stationed").

In subsection (6), in paragraph (a) leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").
In subsection (6), in paragraph (b), leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").
In subsection (7), in line 8, leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").
On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 284C, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 284D, 284E, 284F and 284G moved:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("Designation of areas for purpose of making unauthorised camping unlawful.
.—(1) For section 12 of the Act of 1968 (designation of areas of counties and London boroughs as areas to which provisions of section 10 of that Act prohibiting unauthorised camping apply) there is substituted the following section:—
12.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Minister may by order made on the application of a county council or London borough council designate the area of that council as an area to which section 10 of this Act applies.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Minister may by order made on the joint
1416
application of a county council and one or more councils of districts within that county designate the area of the district or, as the case may be, the combined areas of the districts, as an area to which section 10 of this Act applies.
(3) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) or (2) above in respect of any area unless it appears to him either that adequate provision is made in the order for the accommodation of gipsies residing in or resorting to the area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make any such provision.
(4) An order under this section may be revoked by an order made by the Minister, either on the application of the authority or authorities which made the original application or without such an application.
(5) The power of the Minister to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) Where an order under this section is made in respect of any area it shall be the duty of the county council for that area or, as the case may be, the London borough council concerned to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform gipsies within the area of the making and effect of the order".
(2) Where by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 (which, among other things, reorganised local authority areas) a designation made before 1st April 1974 under section 12 of the 1968 Act as originally enacted (and not revoked) relates to part only of the area of a county, any order which is made on the application of the council of that county under subsection (1) or (2) of the section substituted for section 12 of the 1968 Act by subsection (1) above shall be made to extend only to an area which does not include the area designated before 1st April 1974.").
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("Site licences: exemption for sites provided for gipsies by county councils or regional councils.
. In Schedule 1 to the Act of 1960 (cases where site licence not required), the following is inserted after paragraph 11:—
"Gipsy sites occupied by county councils or regional councils
11A. A site licence shall not be required for the use of land occupied by a county council, or in Scotland by a Regional Council, as a caravan site providing accommodation for gipsies.".").
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of Port XVIA
. In this Part of this Act—
"the Act of 1960" means the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;

1417
"the Act of 1968" means the Caravan Sites Act 1968;
"caravan" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1960; and
"gipsy" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1968.".").
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:
(" Commencement and extent of Part XVIA
.—(1) Section [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants] of this Act shall commence at the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.
(2) In section [Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies] above, the repeal effected by paragraph (b) shall not take effect until the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above, this Part of this Act shall commence at the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.
(4) Sections [Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies], [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants] and [Designation of areas for purpose of making unauthorised camping unlawful] above do not extend to Scotland.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 153 [Enterprise zones]:
On Question, Whether Clause 153 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.15 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: I do not want to detain the Committee, and it may be that I have ill advised myself, but I do not understand at what stage we are going to discuss generally the principle of enterprise zones, about which we on these Benches have considerable reservations. This clause assumes that we are agreed about enterprise zones, but it only introduces the schedule which describes the machinery by which these zones are to be set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has been clever, in that there is an amendment to a clause in the schedule. However, I have very considerable doubts about the proposal that undertakings in these zones should be exempt from the requirements of industrial training boards. This has been put out in a Government paper but it is not included in the schedule, so far as I can discover. We are giving a great many advantages to undertakings
1418
in these zones and I am not clear why they should be exempted from the requirements of industrial training boards which are very much better applied by everybody. It is not entirely disconnected from a later passage in the Government's paper, which said that there should be no reduction in the standards needed to protect health and safety. I think that the training of employees is very important in connection with standards of health and safety.
There is no possiblity of putting down an amendment, because the provision is not set out anywhere. I am just wondering whether the noble Lord can explain to me how we deal with these problems. I have one or two others in my mind.
Lord UNDERHILL: There are two or three other points on enterprise zones that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I wish to say nothing to hinder enterprise zones, particularly as this is an experimental scheme which will help to find out the successes, or otherwise. Having said that, I am a little concerned that they may be too small and may have an adverse effect on other parts of an area, or even a region, and thus create problems. The Minister may be able to give me the answer. The limited size of a zone could have the effect of siphoning development away from other areas in a city. Little advantage would be gained if a number of small firms decided to move out of one area and to move into the enterprise zone. Nothing would be gained except that the community would receive considerable financial benefit.
I gather that the purpose of enterprise zones is to create further jobs, but there are no safeguards. If it is merely a question of a firm moving from one area to another, no extra jobs are being created. While it may help the area where the enterprise zone is situated, it may possibly create problems in another area. We know that run down areas of cities may not be in an enterprise zone and may have in them a considerable number of small firms which might wish to move into a relatively small area of the enterprise zone. There are no safeguards, and I think problems of that kind would arise. Therefore it would need to be monitored very carefully to see whether or not the experiment was successful.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Since the principle of enterprise zones is being discussed, may I say that I am very strongly in favour of them and that I am glad the Government have introduced them? Some years ago, when we were debating the problems of the inner cities, a number of us made the point that in some of the really difficult areas of the country the best thing to do was to relieve them of rates and taxes and to give them other freedoms, in the hope that the sheer intractability of their problems would be conquered by concessions of this kind. That is what enterprise zones are about: they are for areas where the normal processes of development have failed to solve the problems, where the problems are difficult, where for 10, 20 or even more years we have been unable to get their economies moving. A number of us have said over the years that that is the kind of solution which might help them, and this led finally to the experiment being introduced.
As for the problem about firms moving and not creating more jobs, one of the answers to my noble friend is that very few firms will move just for the sake of moving into an enterprise zone. The costs of moving today are horrific. It is not going to be so easy to pull up sticks, move over and not create new jobs. If, when they move, they respond to the freer climate and to the reduction of taxes in an enterprise zone, they may create more jobs in their new location and expand more quickly there than they would have done had they stayed put where they were.
One could go on with this kind of argument. I hope that the general doubt which has been cast on these zones will not be pursued. I think this is a very worthwhile experiment. If they fail in a few years' time, we can write them off, but goodness me! looking round at some of the intractably difficult areas I am glad that at least we are having an experiment with them.
Lord BELLWIN: Not for the first time in matters of this kind during the passage of the Committee stage of this Bill I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having put the points so well that I had intended to make. I think we must accept right from the beginning that this is an attempt at an
1420
experiment. It is an attempt to do something to take areas which are desperately in need of something dramatic, and if we run into snags and difficulties, as we may well do—and there are one or two amendments here which raise certain potential problems, which we acknowledge: we do not run away from them—we shall have to see whether the overall benefit in totality is not greater. It is an attempt to do something and, in general, it has been very much welcomed, not by everybody but by most people, and I hope that the Committee will feel likewise.
I am not claiming that this is the total answer, as I said yesterday when we were dealing with UDCs; but it is an attempt to do something, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will feel that way, at least sufficiently to want to see how it goes. As to his point on the training board, I am advised that it was not considered suitable to go into this Bill, as such, but will be dealt with in some legislation as quickly as we can.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: There is one point which I should like to raise. Of course we welcome it; we are not troglodytes on either side of the Committee and any experiment is welcome. I should like to thank the Minister once again for all the notes that we have had and for getting into the Printed Paper Office this morning the document on enterprise zone policy and proposals. I will not bore the Committee by reading it all through because noble Lords can read it for themselves. I just wonder about land reclamation in places like Stoke-on-Trent, which has a wonderful record for land reclamation—a whole tip of 15 million tons made into a rolling meadow. In mining areas and places like Stoke-on-Trent where clay pits have been dug out, could not an enterprise zone be considered there, so giving employment to possibly a dozen people for three, four or five years on land reclamation? That might be a point worth considering. It would be unfair to bring pressure on the Committee, but I should like it to be on the record that this kind of thing may be considered.
Lord BELLWIN: I am not sure that this is the moment at which we should be talking about this. I think we should recognise that this is going to be a costly

1421
exercise for everyone concerned and, therefore, despite the enthusiasm of many who would like to have a shot at it, we are having to limit it to seven places in England and Wales and one in Scotland.
The problem of derelict land is really something else. Obviously in an area which is a candidate for an enterprise zone such matters as land dereliction are factors to be taken into account. The derelict land grants which are available are liberally dealt with at the present time. We are anxious to do as much as we can in regard to this. It is one area in which, in my experience of the last year or so, there has been a much more open-handed attitude. We recognise that if we do not do this now it takes years to build up a programme, and we could lose that programme. That is why we must give this some priority, which we have been doing.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Schedule 28 [Enterprise zones]:
8.25 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 237, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: One of our concerns throughout the Committee stage of the local government Bill has been the gradual watering down of the power of democratically elected bodies. The schedule provides that the bodies which may draw up plans for enterprise zones are district councils, London boroughs, urban development corporations and new town corporations and our view is that the ability to submit plans for enterprise zones should be restricted to district councils and London borough councils. This does not in any way mean any restriction on where the enterprise zones operate. What it does mean is that in a new town area the new town corporation would have to make the application for an enterprise zone through its district councils and likewise an enterprise zone in an urban area would have to apply through the London borough or district council concerned.
As has already been said in the debate the enterprise zone initiative is seen as an experiment to rejuvenate urban areas. The initial suggested list of possible sites
1422
reflects the emphasis on the inner city. If the experiment is to be successful, there would not only need to be variations between different enterprise zones and their performance, but this will have to be very closely monitored. In our view, the most appropriate bodies to carry out such experiments are the local authorities. They have the capability to monitor enterprise zones and the experience to liaise with other interests in the local population. If the urban development corporations are unable to prepare such schemes, they may well not be able to fulfil these requirements. They would not develop close links with the organisations in the local communities as they themselves are only established under the provisions of this Bill. They will need to concentrate on the immediate tasks in front of them, and it would be far more appropriate for the local authorities to be designated the enterprise zones authorities. Equally, new town corporations do not have a direct democratic link with the local population, which may be crucial in ensuring the successful implementation of the enterprise zone schemes. In addition, of course, a number of new towns are in the process of handing over their powers to democratically elected bodies and this amendment, while saying that the corporations cannot apply to establish enterprise zones, specifically allows for a new town corporation to apply for an enterprise zone through its district council.
From what has been said in the debate which we have just had it would appear that this is a very costly experiment. We welcome the experiment and there are areas such as the new towns which have had considerable tranches of money in the past. It is probably best, particularly in view of the Government's initial feeling on this, that it should be limited to the urban areas and that the authorities which apply for the enterprise zone designation should be limited in the way that I have indicated. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I must say bluntly to my noble friend that I oppose this amendment. I think it is very ill-advised. I have an interest in this matter in that I am the chairman of a new town and so far as I know we are the only new town which has applied to have an enterprise zone. So I have a direct

1423
interest in not seeing this amendment carried. My view is that the new towns are in a strong position to designate land in this way; to designate areas which are suitable to be enterprise zones. In my case—and I am happy to have this opportunity to run a trailer for my application, in the sense that nothing has been finally decided and so one can live in hope. In my own case we have 300 acres of land between GKN Sankey—a huge heavy engineering works—and the central ordnance depot of the Army. In other words, it is a piece of land whose neighbours will not complain. They are not the sort of people who would be injured in any sense by what the pessimists think might happen in an enterprise zone. It is an absolutely admirable site for an enterprise zone and I hope we are going to get it.
Why should we, as the development corporation, have this power? Frankly, because we have the duty under the designation to seek to redevelop this area. In our case it is a whole 30 square miles of previous total dereliction left in the East Shropshire coalfield, very similar to an inner city situation. We have a total obligation to redevelop that area and to bring in industry in order to provide more jobs, and more prosperity for an old, dying area. If we are set up to do the job of setting out 50, 100 or several hundred acres of industrial estates and we have the power to set them out, to recoup for them, to manage them—to do all these other things—why in heaven's name should we not have the power also to ask for an enterprise zone? After all, it is a further weapon, if I can use that word, to secure increasing employment opportunities for the area. In my case, not only is it a previously derelict area, but it has a 13 per cent. unemployment rate. That is not based on our failure as a new town corporation. It is based on the collapse of the old industry of the area which is for ever running into the sand under our feet. We cannot create new jobs fast enough in the new industry to make up for the collapse of the old.
It is for exactly those circumstances that I believe the Government were intending these enterprise zones. If I may come some distance to meet my noble friend, I am sure it would be sensible that
1424
such applications by new town corporations should have at least the goodwill of the district council. I can tell him that that is precisely what the Government are asking in their consultations with the new towns. If one makes such an application, one must have at least goodwill on the part of the district council, or the tolerance of the district council, to see the whole thing through. That is quite properly being asked of us. Although my district council quite unusually is against these enterprise zones, nevertheless it has said that it will not hinder the operation of one if in the wider execution of our duty and our powers to rejuvenate this area we, the development corporation, think it is a good thing to have such an enterprise zone. That is a little way towards my noble friend, but on the general principle of what he is saying—the head-on collision with the power, his total opposition to its being given to new towns—I must totally part company with him. I think it is a very good idea that we have a chance with other people to have these zones.
Lord BELLWIN: I am terribly tempted to say, "Need I say more?" As to the noble Lord's plug for his application or wish, I can only say, "I hear what you say". Of course, that will be done in another place in another way. I have noted down some splendid points to make, but frankly I do not see there is any point in making them because the noble Lord has put the case so well. There is an absolute wish here for a total involvement in this matter by the local authorities. This thing is never going to get anywhere if the local authorities do not want to do it, and we have no intention at all of pressing anyone to do it. In regard to the new town development corporations and so on, whatever I said would simply repeat what the noble Lord has said, and in those circumstances I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may feel able to withdraw his amendment. I will go into more detail if noble Lords would like me to do so.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure we would not like it at this time of the night and at this stage of the Bill. I yield to no one in my admiration for what my noble friend Lord Northfield and his board have done in Telford. They have done a fantastic job. The land reclamation they

1425
have carried out is equalled by nothing else in this country. But I cannot see why the noble Lord is quite so vehement about the suggestion which my noble friend has put up. If he has got the support of his district council, as he says he has, what is to prevent it going through his district council? If we have only limited funds to give on enterprise zones, have we not really got a first duty to the inner cities that are so run down and that do need them? I know that Telford New Town has its special problems. I know it has a higher unemployment rate than it would like or that we would wish to see there, but I do not think we are all that much apart from each other. If my noble friend has the support of the regional district council, there is no reason why a new town should be in it. They should be able to make their case to their district council.
Lord BELLWIN: It will have been seen from those already designated that the clear emphasis obviously is to the local authorities, the districts concerned. That must be a priority. But to take statutory steps to exclude, as this does, would be wrong. At the end of the day the priorities, the decisions, must be based on a judgment. To exclude the opportunity for new town development corporations and the others to have their chance to make their case is further than we ought to go. That is really all I am saying.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I think my noble friend Lady Stedman must have misheard me. I did not say that I had the support of the district council; I said that unusually they were actually opposed to it, but they have made it clear that they will tolerate it and will not hinder the operation of a zone if we are fortunate to get it. That is good enough as far as I am concerned. They see that some experiments of this kind might well need to be made and they are not going to stand in the way. As far as the general principle is concerned, why should the development corporation have these powers rather than the district council, or equal with the district council, in circumstances like this simply because we are providing acres after acres of industrial land throughout the whole town in order to attract employment? That is more our duty, or at least our
1426
power, than that of the district council. So why should we be stopped short when it comes to having this extra industrial zone which is called an enterprise zone? I cannot see the logic of the noble Lord's argument.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I still strongly believe that it is right that this power should be conferred on democratically-elected bodies. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said. In view of the fact that we are on the seventh or eighth day of the Committee stage of this Bill, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.38 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 240, line 20, leave out from ("instrument") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: Under the schedule the Secretary of State has the responsibility to invite bodies to prepare a scheme for an enterprise zone. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, there will be only a limited number of these experiments. I emphasise, as my noble friend has said and as I said in my earlier remarks, that we welcome the experiments and will do nothing to hinder them. But, as there will be a limited number, obviously there must be selectivity on the part of the Secretary of State as to which areas shall have the enterprise zones. It is generally agreed—the Minister has made this clear also—that this is a very costly scheme, a very expensive experiment. Therefore, there may be really important reasons why Parliament might wish to question the selection of a particular zone. This amendment raises the point whether it would not be desirable for this to be by Affirmative Resolution rather than by the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: May I say en passant to the last observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is the seventh day; it only seems like eight days. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to make the designation order establishing an enterprise zone subject to

1427
Affirmative Resolution procedure. It may help the Committee if I very quickly and briefly spell out the formal procedures that must be gone through before an enterprise zone can be established. First, the authority receives an invitation to draw up a scheme. There is no obligation on the authority to take up the invitation and no sanction or reserve power if they do not. Secondly, if the authority do take up the invitation and draw up an enterprise zone scheme, they must publicise it in draft and give people a chance to comment on it. Thirdly, the authority may amend the scheme in the light of the objections, adopt it, and notify the Secretary of State. The adopted scheme must be publicised. Only then can the Secretary of State lay an order designating the area as an enterprise zone, and that order, under the Government's proposals, will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
Precedent suggests that enterprise zones designation orders should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. Enterprise zone schemes will have a similar effect to special development orders under the Planning Acts. Unlike the enterprise zone scheme, there is no requirement for public consultation prior to the making of a special development order; yet such orders are subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure.
The nearest analogy to the sort of fiscal concessions we are making available in enterprise zones would, I suppose, be the advantages available in assisted areas. Again assisted areas are established by Negative Resolution procedure, without any requirement to consult those who might turn out to be on the wrong side of the boundary.
I believe that the procedures we have provided prior to designation give every opportunity for the proposal for an enterprise zone to be scrutinized by those most directly affected; mainly those in and around the zone. Moreover, we intend that the formal invitation to prepare enterprise zone schemes will include directions to consult the county authorities and other bodies, including neighbouring districts, where their interests might be substantially affected.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, might feel that it would not be necessary
1428
to add to what is already an elaborate procedure a requirement for Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, and I wonder if he may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: I very much appreciate the detailed outline given by the Minister of the procedure prior to the order being placed. I think the safeguards are excellent. The point I was trying to emphasise is that Parliament wants to have control over public expenditure, which I would have thought noble Lords opposite would very much appreciate. There could be an argument as to why one area is given a zone, which will be very costly, and another area is not given a zone. But, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 286A:
Page 244, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, where planning permission is so granted for any development or class of development, the enterprise zone authority may direct that the permission shall not apply in relation

(a) to a specified development; or

(b) to a specified class of development; or

(c) to a specified class of development in a specified area within the enterprise zone.

(3B) An enterprise zone authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3A) above unless they have submitted it to the Secretary of State and he has notified them that he approves of their giving it".).
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 287A. Within an enterprise zone, a wide range of development will be permitted without the grant of express planning permission. The range of development may be so wide that objectionable types of development which are seriously detrimental to the enterprise zone or the locality may be proposed. Some control over such objectionable types of development is required. This amendment enables an enterprise zone authority, which, as I said earlier, in our view should be the district council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, I to direct that planning permission granted

1429
by the enterprise zone scheme shall not apply to a specified development and such development would need to be the subject of an express planning permission.
Lord BELLWIN: If the noble Lord would allow me, it might be helpful if I were to tell him straight away that we are prepared to accept this amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I am pleased to hear that. My antennae had not informed me of that, as they sometimes do when the Government are going to accept an amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 246, line 36, at end insert—
("(2A) Where an enterprise zone is wholly or partly situated in Greater London, subparagraphs (1) and (2) above shall have effect as if the references to the county planning authority were references to the Greater London Council and the references to the structure plan were accordingly references to the Greater London development plan.").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 23 of Schedule 28 is concerned with the relationship between an enterprise zone scheme and the normal arrangements under the Planning Acts. The policies reflected in the scheme may differ from those in the structure and local plans for the area. Paragraph 23 therefore requires the authorities which prepared them to review the statutory plans, and if necessary to make amendments to them. Such a provision is needed to ensure that there is no likelihood of confusion arising from a contradiction between statutory structure and local plans and a statutory enterprise zone scheme. In making any amendments the authorities concerned will of course have to follow the normal Planning Act procedures governing amendment of structure and local plans. This amendment corrects a technical fault in paragraph 23. As it stands, it is not provided that the GLC should review the Greater London development plan when an enterprise zone is set up in London. This amendment corrects that oversight. I beg to move the amendment, and recommend it to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 287A:
Page 247, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) make provision as to the procedure for giving a direction under paragraph 17 (3A) above;").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 248, line 22, at end insert (";or
(d) it is an hereditament occupied by a major retail space user".).
The noble Lord said: Before embarking on a speech on this amendment, I look to see whether there are any signs that this one also might be acceptable.
Lord BELLWIN: I remain firmly in my seat.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Enterprise zones will offer major inducements to developers, particularly through the rating exemption. If these inducements stimulate the development of industrial or commercial enterprises, then, unless they have moved directly from one area to another, that will be a positive gain and will not undermine similar developments if they exist outside the enterprise zone.
The situation, in our view, is rather different in the case of retail developments. Retail developments draw on a more or less limited geographical catchment area. The introduction of a new major retailing outlet in an enterprise zone could have a substantial impact on existing retail developments. The very possibility that such developments might be established, stimulated by the rating exemption, could well threaten proposed retailing developments near the enterprise zone. We would wish, therefore, to see this amendment, which would remove the rating exemption from major retail space users, carried, and these amendments define the users as a business occupying space of more than 300 square metres. This would effectively protect local shop users outside the immediate periphery of an enterprise zone. Unless these amendments are accepted, we feel that difficult situations could arise for retail users in adjoining areas. In effect, the rating

1431
exemption granted to the substantial retail users within the zone will give an unfair economic advantage to those particular users. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I am not sure whether or not I wish to support this amendment at this stage, because I am not sure how my noble friend intends to deal with the problem. That there is a problem, or could be a problem, caused by a hypermarket taking advantage of an enterprise zone I have no doubt at all, but I have a feeling that it may be possible to deal with it within the terms of the Bill rather than by this amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I share the slight disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the problem of large hypermarkets. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can indicate whether he thinks that Amendment No. 286A, which we have just carried, would be one way of dealing with such developments if there were dangers to retail operations in the area, or other big public investment in retail opportunities in the area. Alternatively—and here I come to my second point—can he tell us that in drawing up the schemes for these enterprise zones the Government really will be open and flexible with the authorities of the new town corporation, as in my case, and come to them and say, "We would like to put a limit on the size of these operations before we could openly allow them in"? In other words, is there a real flexibility in the Government's mind or are they asking for absolutely total freedom for anything to happen in this field of activity?
Lord BELLWIN: I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect of the proposals—but speaking to the specific amendments, these amendments would exclude businesses with more than 500 square metres of retail floor space from the rating exemption. That would give rise to practical difficulties. There would be, for example, a powerful incentive for retailers to try to subdivide their activities in some artificial way so that they might become separate and smaller units. This, surely, would be a recipe for litigation, uncertainty and possibly even waste. However, I know that a number of
1432
authorities who are keen to have enterprise zones are nevertheless concerned about unlimited hypermarket development, and so for that matter are a number of authorities in adjacent areas also.
We have held discussions with many of the authorities concerned to explore their particular local problems, and if it proves necessary to restrict hypermarket development in particular localities we can do so by putting a planning restriction into the enterprise zone scheme; but shops can make a major contribution to the local economy and to the attractiveness of an area, and many consumers will welcome improved retail provision in their area.
So I suggest we should not dilute the enterprise zone experiment from the outset by deliberately slanting the rating concessions regardless of local circumstances so as to favour only those developments which are supposed to be good and to exclude those which are supposed to be bad. I say again that we realise that there are arguments on both sides on this issue and strong and genuine differences of opinion, and it is because we want to get the right answers that we are still having discussions about this.
It seems to me that the right approach will differ from area to area, depending on the local circumstances, so I would not want to close our options at this stage by accepting the amendments; but I am glad of the opportunity to say that I think the approach should be flexible here and that we should try not to be too rigid in how we deal with it, because it will differ from area to area. In view of that perhaps the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: I am very pleased to hear that but, as a House of Parliament, I do think we are under an obligation to get from the noble Lord a quite clear assurance that if, following these consultations, he and his colleagues do become convinced that it will be necessary to exercise the kind of controls the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is asking for, it will be possible to do it through the Bill without this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My information is that the way to deal with that situation would be by planning restrictions, and

1433
we feel that is the way to go about dealing with this particular problem.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his full and earlier reply, and I am very glad that he accepts that there is a problem here and that he is exploring the ways how it can best be dealt with. In the circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 249, line 12, after ("revenue") insert ("from exempt hereditaments").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment which clarifies the schedule to remove any possible doubts in the future. Unless noble Lords wish me to explain in more detail I do not propose to do so, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 250, line 40, after ("revenue") insert ("from exempt lands and heritages").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment corresponds for Scotland to the amendment just moved by my noble friend. Your Lordships will see the expression "lands and heritages" is inserted, as the Scottish equivalent. It is a much better word for "hereditaments". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
8.55 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 291A:
After Clause 154, insert the following new clause:
("Precepts on local authorities for land drainage.
.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 46 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (by virtue of which the aggregate amount for which precepts in respect of the expenses of a local land drainage district may be issued for any one financial year to a local authority may not, unless special consent has been obtained,
1434
exceed 1·7 times the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year) for the words from "1·7" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section (effect of special resolution) for the words from "1·7" to "area" there shall be substituted the words "the amount calcuaated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of that authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
(3) Accordingly, in section 109 of that Act (regulations and orders)—

(a) in subsection (2), after the words "under section" there shall be inserted the words "46 or"; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the word "27" there shall be inserted the word "46".

(4) The amendments made by this section shall have effect in relation to every rate period, within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967, beginning with such rate period as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall not specify a rate period beginning before 1st April 1981.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to alter the Land Drainage Act 1976. That Act gives power to water authorities to carry out land drainage works, main river improvements, flood alleviation and sea defence work. Expenditure is financed by a precept on the county rate and Section 46 of the Act lays down a limit to the amount of any precept. This limit was originally set in an Act of 1948 and given a decimal equivalent in the Water Act 1973. Such a limit is now wholly unrealistic, due to the effect of inflation on expenditure and to out of date rating valuations.
I will not weary the Committee with the technicalities of the amendment, except to say that whereas the costs of construction have increased since 1972 by 200 per cent., the penny rate product of England and Wales has increased by only 26 per cent. So when, therefore, you have a financial limit imposed by statute and geared to a penny rate product in a way that may have been appropriate in 1973 and is now quite inappropriate, the raising of enough money to pay for this essential work becomes exceedingly difficult; and the purpose of this amendment is to give the responsible Ministers

1435
power to introduce a measure of flexibility into and out of date situation by making an order to substitute another multiplier of the penny rate product to that prescribed in the old Act. I beg to move.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): We agree that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales should have the powers to increase the maximum precept which can be levied by a water authority on county councils where that proves necessary, in view of the fact that the level was originally set, as my noble friend said, way back in 1948. We think this is a reasonable suggestion, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Acceptance by the Government of this amendment will do a great deal to help restore the balance between the limit on land drainage expenditure and the penny rate product, which was in danger of being upset.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 155 [Relaxation of Ministerial controls over social services]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendments Nos. 292 and 293:
Page 128, line 17, leave out ("Subsection (1) of") and insert ("The following section shall be substituted for").
Page 128, line 22, leave out from ("State)") to ("A") in line 25 and insert—
("3.—(1)").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 292 and 293 to Clause 155, I should also like to speak to a consequential Amendment No. 319 to Schedule 30, which is also a Government amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, although not so shown on the Marshalled List. These are purely drafting amendments, to combine the provisions of Clause 155(1) and (2) into a single subsection. The amendments do not change the effect of these provisions, which is to repeal Section 3(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and to make consequential amendments to
1436
Section 3(3) and (4) of that Act; and the purpose is to simplify the drafting and enable Section 3 to be consolidated and shortened, consequent upon the repeal of Section 3(1) by this Bill and the earlier repeal of Section 3(2) by the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973.
As to Amendment No. 319 to Schedule 30, Section 15(2) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in the definition of the expression "social services functions" makes a reference to Section 3(3) of that Act. This amendment deletes the subsection reference bearing simply a reference to Section 3, and is consequential upon the renumbering of Section 3(3) of the 1970 Act by Clause 155 of this Bill, and the consolidation and shortening of the section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.
9.1 p.m.
Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 294:
After Clause 155, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of the requirement to appoint Children's Regional Planning Committees.
.—(1) So much of Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and Part IV of the Child Care Act 1980 as requires the establishment of Children's Regional Planning Committees and the preparation and approval of regional plans and schemes for the provision of facilities for persons placed under the supervision of local authorities shall cease to have effect.
(2) In carrying out their powers and duties under sections 11 to 19 (Supervision) and sections 35 to 38 (Community Homes) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and sections 31 to 34 of the Child Care Act 1980 the local authority shall act following consultation with such other authorities or bodies as they may consider necessary.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I should like to move Amendment No. 294. The object of this amendment is to implement the stated intention of the Government set out in the White Paper Central Government Controls over Local Authorities, to abolish the duty to establish children's regional planning committees and to replace those with a permissive power, leaving it to local authorities to make, as necessary, joint arrangements by local agreement.
This is a shortened version of Clause 238 and Schedule 29 of the No. 1 Bill originally introduced in this House. I should like to emphasise that the object is not to abolish these committees, but only the statutory duty to have them. Some are very desirable: some are not. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to this matter and I hope they will accept the amendment in as short a time as I have taken to move it. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The Government stand by their commitment—given in the September 1979 White Paper on the review of controls over local government—to propose to Parliament the conversion of the present duty on all social services authorities to create and participate in children's regional planning committees into a power to do so where authorities in a particular area think that such a committee is the best way of achieving the proper provision of these services for children, which need planning across a wider area than that of a single authority. They also stand by their commitment to abolish the need for the preparation and submission of regional plans for these services to central Government. There is, therefore, no policy difference over the need to make these changes.
As my noble friend has said, amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 were included in the first version of the present Bill. They ran to two pages and a schedule. With reluctance, we decided that this should be among the material omitted to make a shorter and less complex Bill. We shall need, at an appropriate time, to propose to Parliament longer and more complex amending material, in fact the material included in the original version of the Bill, or something like it. We would be very reluctant to complicate consideration—here and in another place—of this already major measure by introducing at this stage the amendments necessary to meet the objectives we share. But I give the assurance that the Government intend to introduce suitable material into early legislation, and are confirmed in their intention to do so by my noble friend's views. I hope very much that on this basis he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord DIGBY: I am most grateful for that reply. I am afraid we had appreciated that our attempt to shorten this might pose problems for the parliamentary draftsmen. But, it is a most welcome assurance that legislation will be produced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No.294ZB:
After Clause 155, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 9 of Justices of The Peace Act 1979.
. After section 19(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 there shall be inserted a new subsection (2)(a) as follows:—
"(2)(a) For the purpose of subsection (2) above the districts of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent shall be deemed to be non-metropolitan counties.".").
The noble Lord said: If I may accept a very sudden dock brief and substitute myself most unworthily for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I beg to move this amendment. I shall not trouble your Lordships with a long and detailed speech, but will say that most of what I have briefly to say is said on behalf of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent with which worthy places may I immediately tell your Lordships I have some acquaintance of fondness having visited them, but have no other representative capacity whatsoever.
This matter arises out of what many of your Lordships know from intimate experience to be the magistrates' courts committees and what happened under the Local Government Act 1972. Briefly, the magistrates' courts committees deal with such matters in regard to the administration of courts, as court accommodation, court staff, training for magistrates, training for court staff and provide the service, mostly through justices' clerks, for the courts within the area of the magistrates' courts committee.
Before 1974 each city and county borough had its own magistrates' courts committee dealing with its own city or county borough. The Local Government Act 1972 drastically amended that and indeed when tidying-up—as it was thought—local authority administration, of necessity perhaps, brought within the purview of that tidying-up operation the

1439
jurisdiction of magistrates' courts committees and the position of individual magistrates' courts committees. But that was done largely to deal with the boundaries of local authorities and was not always convenient in regard to the administration of justice. It is said by the worthy people of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent that this has caused not only grave injustice to them, but has led to deterioration in the administration of justice and much extra expense—a matter which I know will be very much the concern of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite and those, worthy of your Lordships, who sit behind them.
Indeed, in 1974 as a result of this, to take Plymouth as an example—but it applies to all the other cities that I have mentioned—the magistrates' courts committee was abolished, and the Plymouth City Council ceased to have any consultative powers in connection with the Plymouth Magistrates' Court. I must quote the next bit because I dare not say it myself and your Lordships will take it for granted that it is, indeed, a quotation from those who are very interested in Plymouth in this matter. I am told that:
"Several anomalies were created, not least the provision that demotes a great and historic city like Plymouth to a rural area of Devon, when the very same statute created metropolitan districts, many of which are the same size in population as the city of Plymouth, and some even smaller.
"These metropolitan districts were given their own magistrates' courts committees for no other reason than the administrative convenience of the local authority which was set up."
I shall not weary the members of your Lordships' Committee with this statistic, but I have been given information which seems to show that there are 23 towns which have their own magistrates' courts committee, where in each case the population is under 300,000, and I am reliably informed that the population of Plymouth is 257,700.
I am told that if Plymouth had its own magistrates' courts committee there would be a great saving of expense. At the moment six representatives are called to Exeter eight or 10 times a year, and the round trip is 100 miles, all of it charged to the public account. The magistrates' courts committee for Plymouth would have the members of the committee moving two or three miles and the cost would be nil for travelling, as would
1440
the secretariat costs. No extra staff would be needed to run the committee and there are available in the city of Plymouth magistrates with experience of magistrates' courts committee work.
I shall end this plea on behalf of Plymouth, Brighton and the other areas that I have mentioned by saying—and this is typical of all of them—that the Plymouth City Bench has resolved unanimously to seek a return of court administration to the pre-1974 position, with the effect that it would have its own magistrates' courts committee. The Plymouth Law Society supports the proposition unreservedly; Plymouth City Council supports the re-creation of the Plymouth magistrates' courts committee; the Plymouth court staff also support a Plymouth magistrates' courts committee.
Therefore, if the Committee would be good enough to take the case that I have made for Plymouth as being the case to be made also for Brighton and Stoke-on-Trent, with some slight variations in the numbers in the population and so on, but the main points of the case being the same, I can relieve your Lordships of further words and merely put before your Lordships a plea on behalf of those places to accept this amendment, the effect of which would be that these places would have their own magistrates' courts committee. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am very grateful to my noble friend for having moved this amendment with his usual skill and clarity. The Committee has tried to help the Government by not speaking on certain amendments for a long time, and on this amendment, too, I shall be brief, because the general tenor of the argument has been made. There is no doubt that in the reorganisation of local government which took place in 1974 many county boroughs—acknowledged by the Royal Commission for Local Government as:
"the most effective local government unit we have known "—
lost some of their most important powers to the non-metropolitan counties.
Then there were these four areas that have been mentioned by my noble friend. The Brighton justices also wish to associate themselves with these towns of Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent. Without going into details of the economics, having

1441
looked at this massive Bill, we saw that in Clause 18 there was the possibility of being in order by including an amendment to Section 9 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, because the whole section deals with miscellaneous problems.
As regards finance, I shall say very little because of the speech made by my noble friend. The arguments of Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Stoke-on-Trent, are valid and so are they valid in other parts of the country. But the outstanding point to be made is that this not only wastes time in the administration of magistrates' courts in all these places, but it wastes money. There is the fact that substantial periods are spent travelling to and from meetings, causing justices to give up substantial additional periods of their time and staff to be absent from work. It is difficult to endeavour to calculate the savings, but they would inevitably amount to several thousand pounds per annum in the case, for instance, of Brighton alone.
For the reasons set out in this document and in documents that other Members on both sides of the Committee have received it is apparent that a cheaper and more efficient system for the administration of justice would be obtained by setting up in Brighton, for instance, an independent magistrates' courts committee. I am making a plea for Stoke-on-Trent, and Plymouth and Portsmouth that this slight clause should be inserted in this new Bill.
Not wishing to delay the Committee, and knowing that on both sides of the Committee circulars have been received, and knowing that the experience of both sides of the Committee is such that I think that most people, whatever the Government now say, will appreciate that there is substance in the argument that my noble friend has put forward and I think in the argument that I have put forward, I shall listen to the Minister and see whether he has something nice to tell us as well.
9.16 p.m.
Lord DIGBY: This amendment has been slipped in here without consultation. So far as I know it is the first time that a separate commission of the peace has been set up in a district council. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned 23 other districts. I think he must be
1442
referring to metropolitan districts. The Association of County Councils is opposed to such a change. Irrespective of our attitude on the principle, it must be clear that this is no way to legislate for the administration of the community. If there is to be an examination of the basis of the administration of justice at magistrates level in these towns, by all means let it take place, but not in this way and not without consultation.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. This is an endeavour to rectify this problem, if possible. Provided we can get some kind of constructive answer that this may be looked into, I would not wish to divide the Committee on something like this; but it is rather important and there is substance in the argument that the noble Lord has just put forward.
Lord BELSTEAD: It is of course no secret that the previous Government had in mind some changes in the division of functions between county and district councils. However, I think your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong to consider piecemeal adjustments that could create new anomalies. At any rate, that is the case really being made by my noble friend Lord Digby. It is a case which has a considerable amount to be said for it.
Of course I am aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in moving the amendment, that some of the non-metropolitan districts which were formerly county boroughs are more populous than some of the new metropolitan districts which have their own magistrates' courts committees. Of course a city like the City of Plymouth, with its great and historical traditions, clearly wants to have the powers which it believes are consonant with its dignity and size. But where does one draw the line? If—and I emphasise "if"—the arguments in favour of restoring not only to Plymouth but to Brighton, Portsmouth, and Stoke-on-Trent their own magistrates' courts committees are so strong, why should one stop there? Why not extend the principle to all former county boroughs?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Yes, if it would save money.
Lord BELSTEAD: I shall come to that in a moment. Or are we to adopt another yardstick? If we are, I have not heard that so far this evening. I think that this is an amendment which does not have enough regard for the wider implications. So far as I can find out, there seems to have been little proper consultation about the proposal. None, so far as I know, with the existing magistrates' courts committees—at any rate, so far as the Plymouth proposal is concerned. That is the committee which of course the amendment is proposing to dismember. Or with the existing paying authorities. That is to say, the county councils, which might have been expected to have some relevant comments to make about the alleged benefits and savings.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course the county councils were aware of this. The noble Lord who spoke was aware that this was in the air, if I may put it that way. It has not just descended from the heavens above. I take the point that the noble Lord is making. All I ask is that it will be given some serious attention, because it is a real problem.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is making a substantial point. If there has not been discussion at local level with the paying authority and with the magistrates' courts committee, both of which bodies, it is proposed, should be replaced, then it is extremely difficult for this Committee to get an idea of both sides of the case, in particular about the alleged benefits so far as money is concerned. I feel that for that reason alone, despite the felicity with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved the amendment at very short notice, this is no way to write an amendment into a Bill.
Lord MISHCON: Perhaps I can shorten the matter for the Committee. Obviously this is a subject on which there should be consultation. Your Lordships' Committee is presumably so popular with Brighton, Plymouth and Stoke-on-Trent that they thought your Lordships would welcome hearing their case. It has been heard, and I imagine the Minister would welcome—I ask him to confirm this—an opportunity for there now to be discussions with the appropriate county councils and his
1444
department, after which these matters may be voiced and possibly carried a stage further.
Lord BELSTEAD: If there are discussions with both the local authority and the magistrates' courts committee, I think it will be found there is probably not agreement, and if there is not agreement at local level I suspect that the Department of the Environment would not wish to carry the matter any further.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not want to delay the Committee, but I suggest that is a very illogical argument. The 1974 Act itself was the subject of much disagreement, but when Parliament passed it, it became an Act. We are only asking for consultation and discussion. I do not want to press this matter or create a bad atmosphere. There may be disagreement, but intelligent people try to find a modus Vivendi.
Lord MORRIS: In my view this is quite the wrong vehicle by which to attempt to amend the 1979 Act, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the story.
Lord MISHCON: On the terms I mentioned earlier, and subject to what the Minister said, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 156 agreed to.
9.23 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS Lady KINLOSS moved Amendment No. 294A:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 94 of Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907
. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907—
"(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and pleasure vessels—

(a) on any water owned or managed by the British Waterways Board;

(b) on any inland waters, as defined in section 135(1) of the Water Resources Act 1963, in respect of which a water authority may make byelaws under section 79 of that Act;

(c) subject to subsection (9) below, on any canal or other inland navigation

1445
which a navigation authority, as defined in section 135(1) of the Water Resources Act 1963, are required or empowered to manage or maintain under any enactment; or

(d) on any harbour maintained or managed by a harbour authority, as defined in section 57(1) of the Harbours Act 1964.

(9) Subsection (8) (c) of this section does not preclude a local authority granting licences under subsection (1) above in relation to pleasure boats or vessels operating on any canal or inland navigation which they themselves are required or empowered to manage or maintain.
(10) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means let for hire to the public."").
The noble Lady said: I move this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 294B. No. 294A comes at the end of a clause which affects pleasure boats operating on inland waters and replaces, in improved form, the byelaw-making powers of district councils contained in Section 172 of the Public Health Act 1875. It is generally welcomed by those concerned and, among other things, makes it clear that the powers apply to boats let for hire to the public. However, the provisions of the Public Health (Amendment) Act 1907 have not been brought into line. As things stand, it would be possible for district councils to interfere with free cruising on, for example, British Waterways' navigations by asking for an additional licence or by demanding different requirements for craft passing through their territory. This would have a catastrophic effect on the ever-increasing hire-boat industry.
The amendment removes powers from district councils where the waterway is already managed by a competent authority, but does not prevent a local authority from granting licences to craft operating on a navigation for which the council is directly responsible. The amendment lists several competent authorities where the district council powers would be abrogated. Amendment No. 294B mentions only the British Waterways Board. I think the Minister is willing to accept that amendment, but has objections to the longer list of competent authorities now proposed. If so, I will withdraw No. 294A but ask the Minister to give his
1446
reasons fully so that the matter may be considered between now and Report, and I very much hope that in order to make progress he will then agree to No. 294B. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: The district councils, to whom both these amendments refer, greatly prefer the amendment of the noble Countess and the noble Lady to the amendment of the noble Lords.
Lord BELSTEAD: With regard to Amendment No. 294A, as the noble Lady suggested, we have objection to the list of bodies mentioned in that particular amendment, because in some cases the bodies referred to in the new clause have only limited powers to control pleasure boats and these powers may not extend to safety matters but may be directed to other purposes, for instance, the control of pollution. In other cases while the bodies in question may have responsibility for the waters themselves, there may be no power to attach conditions to the boats operating on them. In short, the position is confused, and it is a matter which the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking into.
However, as that new clause stands we feel that it could indeed leave gaps in the safety licensing regulations, and lives could be at risk. Before we come to the new clause contained in the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Countess and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I wish to say that we like that amendment and that I propose to accept it.
Lady KINLOSS: In thanking the Minister for his reply and in hoping that he might reconsider part of it at the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The COUNTESS of LOUDOUN The COUNTESS of LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 294B:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907
. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907—
"(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and pleasure vessels on any canal owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.
(9) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means "let for hire to the public.".").
The noble Countess said: I thank the Minister for his kind words, and I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 157 to 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 [Amendments of Inner Urban Areas Act 1978]:
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 130, line 32, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("the Schedule to that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.
Lord DIGBY: Amendments Nos. 296 to 299A will not now be moved, since what they propose has already been accepted in another form.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 299B:
After Clause 160, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for loss of office
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Secretary of State or by such body as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any such service by them as may be so prescribed would be, holders of any such office or employment as may be so prescribed and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to any provision of this Act or of any instrument made under this Act (other than a provision of Part XII of this Act or of any instrument made thereunder).
(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations,

(b) make different provision for different classes of persons and for different circumstances and make or authorise the Secretary of State to make exceptions and conditions,

(c) be framed so as to have effect from a date earlier than the making of the regulations,
1448
but so that regulations having effect from a date earlier than the date of their making shall not place any individual in a worse position that he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only from the date of their making.

(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 299C. A number of the provisions of the Bill may cause people who are employed in local government and in new town development corporations to lose their jobs. Examples of these provisions are Clause 14(5) (direction by the Secretary of State to require a direct labour organisation to cease functioning), Clause 90 (repeal of the Community Land Act), Part IX (town and country planning) and Part XV (new towns).
There should be a compensation scheme for employees who lose their jobs as a result of the enactment and implementation of any of the provisions of the Bill. The usual argument advanced against the need to make provisions for such a scheme is that there is power to make compensation regulations under the Superannuation Act 1972. However, we believe that it is necessary to make a compensation scheme in relation to this Bill which does in fact contain in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 19 a special provision for compensation in relation to employees of the Land Authority for Wales.
Grave concern has been caused to local government employees, trade unions and the TUC generally by a letter dated 10th September 1980 from the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department to the General Secretary of the TUC. This letter states that the Government have decided not to make use of the Crombie code for any statutory reorganisation. The need to make compensation provisions for public servants who suffer loss because of a decision by Parliament is no less now, or is perhaps greater now, than it has been in the past when the Crombie compensation regulations have been in existence; for example, in 1974, under the 1972 Act. Although the compensation scheme has its imperfections, they do not constitute any reason for abolition of the use of the scheme.
The first of these two amendments is intended to provide for compensation and is

1449
based on Section 259 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the second contains provisions to enable local government employees to elect for early retirement. The second new clause deals with this proposition, and it is based on Section 260 of the Act of 1972. Although early retirement is now possible under local government superannuation regulations, the provision for compensatory added years is only discretionary. The new clause is intended to provide that certain officers have the right to early retirement on compensatory terms if this Bill causes them to suffer loss. These two amendments are intended to deal in a proper way with the rights and expectations of local authority employees, new town development corporation employees, and so on, who could lose their jobs as a result of the effects of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: There is in fact already a scheme for the payment of compensation to local government staff who are made redundant or lose their jobs in the interests of greater efficiency. This scheme, which was extended to cover new town staff, was agreed between management and unions, and is at present embodied in a departmental letter published in March 1976. The scheme is in process of being converted into regulations, which it is hoped can be made later this year.
The Government do not believe it is necessary to make any new provision for compensation for members of staff who may be affected by the Bill. It is our belief that the scheme already in existence for compensation of local government staff who are made redundant or, as I say, lose their jobs in the interests of efficiency is fully adequate, and that no further provision is required. This scheme is to be embodied in regulations to be made in the near future, as I have said, and is available for staff employed in new towns as well as in local government. The Government do not believe, either, that there is a need for the Crombie code in present circumstances, when adequate management terms are already available.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am sorry he maintains the position which he displayed earlier in our considerations during this Committee stage, that it is
1450
not necessary to make special provision for employees. However, in view of the time I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 299C not moved.]
Clauses 161 and 162 agreed to.
Schedule 29 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
9.35 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 252, line 2, at end insert—
("Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act 1931 (c. 41)
The following subsection shall be added after section 12(1) of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act 1931 (power of county councils to provide cottage holdings)—
"(1A) If the tenant of a cottage holding feels aggrieved by a prohibition such as is mentioned in the proviso to section 47(1) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 (prohibition of improvements), he may appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who may confirm, vary or annul the prohibition, and the decision of the Minister shall be final.".").
The noble Earl said: The effect of this amendment is to preserve the right of a tenant of a cottage holding to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food against the refusal of his county council landlord to allow the improvement of that holding. If the tenant plants fruit trees or bushes, or strawberry plants or other vegetable crops which remain productive for two or more years contrary to an express written prohibition by the council, he shall not be entitled to compensation for the improvements on termination of his tenancy. But he has the right to appeal against the prohibition to the Minister who may confirm, vary or annul it. This amendment preserves this right. As there are only 26 cottage holdings in the country and they will not be continued, we think it only right that their right shall be preserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 301:

1451
Page 252, line 25, at end insert—
("Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)
2A.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (compensation where order for new tenancy precluded on certain grounds) the words "the product of the appropriate multiplier and" shall be inserted after the word "be" in paragraphs (a) and (b)
(2) The following subsections shall be added after subsection (7) of that section:—
"(8) In subsection (2) of this section "the appropriate multiplier" means such multiplier as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (8) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
The noble Earl said: If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 301, 302 and 307 together. They are consequential upon the cancellation of the rating revaluation made by Clause 23. We have investigated a number of statutes which use rateable values or gross annual values from rating valuation lists for purposes other than rating. As a result, we have found three cases in which either the rateable value or the gross value is used for calculating an entitlement to compensation. In the absence of a rating revaluation, these entitlements are slowly losing their value and we propose that the Secretary of State should have a power to apply, by order, a multiplier to the rateable value or the gross value. This multiplier would reflect the movement of property prices since 1973. It would be used solely for calculating compensation.
The three cases are, first, Amendment No. 301 which deals with compensation by landlords to business tenants under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; the second one is Amendment No. 302 which concerns payment by housing authorities to owners of houses in multiple occupation under Section 78 of the Housing Act 1964; and the third one is covered by Amendment No. 307 which deals with cases of compensation by landlords to tenants in the new assured tenancies under Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980.
It might be of assistance if I were to give your Lorsdhips an indication of how the Government propose to use this power, as similar powers are sought in the other two amendments. The Inland Revenue valuation office has given us advice on the movement of property
1452
values since the 1973 revaluation. For compensation in the case of business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act, a multiplier of a little over two would seem appropriate; for compensation in housing cases which may arise under Section 78 of the Housing Act 1964 or Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980, a multiplier of about two and one-third would seem right. We will consult interested bodies, professional associations and so forth about these figures and we shall then make orders to come into effect on 24th March, which is a quarter day often used in leasing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 254, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) In paragraph 3(3), for the word "For" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to sub-paragraphs (3A) to (3C) below, for".
(3) The following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after that sub-paragraph:—
"(3A) For the purposes of this paragraph the gross value of a dwelling whose rateable value is by virtue of subsection (1) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 to be taken to be its net annual value ascertained in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of that section is the corresponding gross value.
(3B) In sub-paragraph (3A) above "the corresponding gross value" means a gross value which would be equivalent to the net annual value of the dwelling as shown in the valuation list if there were deducted any amount that by virtue of an order made or falling to be treated as made under subsection (2) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 would be deducted from the gross value of the dwelling if it had been required to be assessed to its gross value instead of its net annual value.
(3C) If more than one value is ascertained under sub-paragraph (3B) above to be the corresponding gross value of the dwelling, the highest value so ascertained shall be taken to be the corresopnding gross value for the purposes of this paragraph."").
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships may wonder why Amendment No. 306 follows Amendment No. 301 and is thereafter followed by Amendment No. 302. It is not due to weariness because of the length of the Committee stage; it is because when the amendment was first put down there was a typographical error in so far as it was put down as an amendment to page 254, which made it Amendment No. 306. In fact, the amendment is to page 253.
This is a technical amendment designed to ensure that valuation lists can be used to calculate the compensation which is payable under the Land Compensation Act after a revaluation. This is necessary because under Clause 24 gross value figures will have been removed from the list, and this allows a gross value figure to be calculated from the net annual value figure which is the one that appears on the rating list. I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
9.40 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 253, line 32, at end insert
("Housing Act 1964 (c. 56)
5A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 78 of the Housing Act 1964 (periodical payment to dispossed proprietor) for the words from "one half" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "the product of one half of the gross value for rating purposes of the house as shown in the valuation list on the date when the control order comes into force and the appropriate multiplier".
(2) In subsection (5) of that section for the word "For" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsections (5A) to (5C) below, for".
(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—
"(5A) For the purposes of the references in this section to the gross value of the house, that gross value, in the case of a house whose rateable value is by virtue of subsection (1) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 to be taken to be its net annual value ascertained in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of that section, is the corresponding gross value.
(5B) In subsection (5A) above "the corresponding gross value" means a gross value which would be equivalent to the net annual value of the house as shown in the valuation list if there were deducted any amounts that by virtue of an order made or falling to be treated as made under section 19(2) of the General Rate Act 1967 would be deducted from the gross value of the house if it had been required to be assessed to its gross value instead of its net annual value.
(5C) If more than one value is ascertained under subsection (5B) above to be the corresponding gross value of the house, the highest value so ascertained shall be the corresponding gross value for the purposes of the references in this section to the gross value.
(5D) In subsection (1) of this section "the appropriate multiplier" means such multiplier as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
1454
(5E) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5D) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this on Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 253, line 33, at end insert—
(" 5B. Section 5(1)(g) of the General Rate Act 1967 (by virtue of which rules may provide for the inclusion in the demand note on which a rate is levied of information as to the amounts in the pound which are being levied for services administered by the rating authority and any precepting authority) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would remove the obligation on authorities to print on the rate demand note itself a schedule of services provided by both the rating and precepting authority and the equivalent rate poundage costs of these services for the coming year. The confusion of information about the amount of the rate bill entitlements to rebates and so on with supporting statistics justifying the rate levy has attracted widespread criticism in recent years. And this particular obligation has restricted authorities' discretion in providing to ratepayers information of this kind in an imaginative and meaningful way.
We have recently issued a widely supported code of practice for authorities, entitled Explaining the Local Authority Rate Bill, which sets out not only the information to be included on the rate demand note itself, but also the basic information about costs of services and other explanations of the rate levy which will be contained in supporting statements published for ratepayers and other interested parties when rate demands are issued. This reflects our wish to extend the scope for more information of this kind to be made more widely available, and to allow for local flair and discretion to be exercised in the manner of its presentation. We have said that, if the Bill becomes law we will do away with the existing very restrictive statutory rules governing the contents of rate demand notes as being incompatible with this new approach, and Section 5(1)(g) of the 1967 Act comes under the same heading. If it is retained, we believe there is a

1455
continuing danger of confusion and alienation among ratepayers and a wasted effort on the part of local authorities. This amendment, and the amendment which follows, is designed to give effect to this purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 253, line 34, leave out ("the General Rate Act 1967") and insert ("that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 254, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert (" "Schedule 11 to" there shall be substituted the words "section 19 of"").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to correct the drafting. At an earlier stage in the Bill the draftsman's pen slipped and, as a result, the Government deleted in another place too much of the General Rate Act. We seek to reinstate this omission by reinserting
1456
the words "section 19 of" in lieu of "schedule 11 to ". I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 307:
Page 254, line 37, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1980 (c. 51)
9A. In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980 (application of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to assured tenancies) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 7:—
"7A. The power to prescribe a multiplier conferred by subsection (8) of that section includes power to prescribe a multiplier in relation to assured tenancies different from that prescribed in relation to other tenancies to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies." ").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment on Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 30 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 308, 308A and 309 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 255, line 53, at end insert ("in their application to England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment, required to ensure consistency between this schedule and Schedule 2, paragraph 3(2), which excluded Scotland from the repeal of the control contained in Section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 256, line 2, leave out from ("95") to end of line 3 and insert (", in subsection (2), the words "as confirmed" and the words "then, if the order is confirmed," and subsection (2A)").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 removes the requirement in Section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for smoke control orders to be confirmed by the Minister. These amendments provide further repeals consequential upon the loss of this power. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 257, line 20, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 22.").
The noble Lord said: This refers to another paragraph of Schedule 2, removing requirements in connection with the Clean Air Act 1956. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 259, line 32, leave out ("12").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 313, with permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 314 and say that these are simple technical amendments to remove references to two provisions which the Bill erroneously
1458
repeals. It is the case that the Government originally had it in mind to delegate responsibility in respect of cinema licence fees. However, as the Home Office explained to the local authorities in March, the matter was reconsidered and the Government concluded it would be preferable to make no change in the present arrangements for the time being at least. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 259, line 34, third column, leave out ("10").
The noble Earl said: I think that my noble friend has just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 314AA:
Page 259, line 50, at end insert—

("REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(7)— HIGHWAYS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 97.

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

In section 53, in subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Minister" in paragraph (b) and at the end of that paragraph the words "as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct", and subsections (3) and (4).

7&8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.

Highways Act 1959.

In section 30, subsections (2) and (3) and in subsection (4), the words "Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section"

Section 59(6).

In section 73(1) the proviso.

Sections 95 and 96.

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

Insertion 108(10) the words "and any question arising under this subsection whether the withholding of a consent is unreasonable shall be determined by the Minister".

In section 126, subsection (2), in subsection (3) the words "or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the last foregoing subsection", and in subsection (4), the words "or subsection (2)".

Section 181(5).

In section 211(2) the proviso.

In section 233, insubsection(2), the words from "but" to the end and in subsection (5) the words "subject to the approval of the Minister".

Section 246(2).

Section 264(5).

Section 280(2), (3) and (4).

Section 288.

In Schedule 24, paragraph 12(4).

9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 63.

Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961.

Section 16(4).

1966 c. 42.

Local Government Act 1966.

Section 29(3).

1968 c. 41.

Countryside Act 1968.

In section 29(4) the words "and the highway authority shall, before refusing to make an order under subsection (2) of this subsection, consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".

1968 c. 73.

Transport Act 1968.

Section 120.

1971 c. 41.

Highways Act 1971.

Section 85.".

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. It has been retabled due to misprints in the original. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: As my noble friend said, this is consequential upon earlier amendments, and we are happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 314B:
Page 259, line 50, at end insert—
("Repeals consequential on section 1(7)—

ROAD TRAFFIC

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1967 c. 76

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.

Section 1(9). In section 9(5) the words "made by the Greater London Council".

Section 17.

Section 26(5).

Section 84B(1) (g).

In section 84D, in subsection (2)(d), the words" section 26(5) or "and subsection (3).

Section 113(2).

1968 c. 41.

Countryside Act 1968.

Section 32(9).

1972 c. 70.

Local Government Act 1972.

In Schedule 19, paragraph 11.

1973 c. 65.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Schedule 14, paragraph 63.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 260, line 5, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 5(1)(g).").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment which is consequential on an earlier one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 316 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 316A:
Page 260, line 53, at end insert ("Section 7(5)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 316A. This amendment follows on the shift of responsibility for planning matters from the counties to the districts and it adds Section 7(5) to those clauses which the schedule was already going to repeal in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In Section 7(5), there is a requirement that a structure plan shall indicate any parts of the county planning authorities' area which they, the counties, have selected as action areas and imposes a requirement that a local plan shall be prepared in respect of every action area indicated in the structure plan.
The proposal is that future structure plans should not contain any provisions relating to action areas, and that it should be left to the discretion of existing planning authorities, who are responsible for the preparation of local plans, to decide whether or not an action area local plan should be prepared. It is intended that this change should apply only to the structure plans approved after the date when this amendment comes into operation, following the enactment of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I agree with my noble friend that it is an unnecessary restriction to require action areas to be indicated in structure plans, before action area local plans can be prepared to propose the comprehensive treatment of an area. Unfortunately, however, the amendment goes only part of the way. There ought also to be corresponding amendments in Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act, so that the changes extend to Greater London. I fear that all this is rather more complex than my noble friend might at first have imagined. But I assure him that my right honourable friends and I welcome the change in principle and we wish to consider it carefully.
Lord SANDFORD: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 317 not moved.]
9.53 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 261, line 24, at end insert ("Section 12(1)").
The noble Lord said: This adds another section to another part of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is repealed by Schedule 30. There has been a feeling for some while that too much time and effort are spent on public participation in connection with the preparation of local plans. The proposal to add this section to those repealed by Schedule 11 would have the effect of considerably reducing the amount of time and energy spent—in my view, unnecessarily—on publicity for the report of survey in connection with the local plan. Some local authorities seek public participation at this stage. The proposal is that the statutory requirement to have public participation on the report of survey should be deleted. I believe that this proposal is supported by the other associations and that it also finds favour in the department. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I think many of those interested in the structure and local plan system recognise that too much time has been taken to prepare these plans. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 requires authorities responsible for a local plan to arrange public participation in the preparation of the plan and to consider objections to the plan proposals.
My noble friend's amendment, however, goes further than we would wish. It also seeks to remove the requirement for public participation and consultation on the preparation of the plan. I think we need to strike a balance between the speedy production of plans and the opportunities for those with an interest in the proposals to make representations. I therefore cannot recommend that we accept this amendment, but I can say to my noble friend that I would be happy to discuss a more limited amendment of this section with him.
Lord SANDFORD: I am most grateful. One of those amendments went not quite far enough and another fell a little short. In naval gunnery that is recognised as a "straddle" and I think we can be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 317B:
Page 263, line 23, at end insert ("Section 29(5)").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 317C, 317E and 317F at the same time. Under the Land Compensation Act 1973, when he is affected by a blight notice before compulsory acquisition comes into effect, a farmer or a person who is suffering from a home loss payment is debarred from claiming such a payment. Where the owner of a farm is displaced under these Acts from his present farm through compulsory acquisition and begins to farm a new unit elsewhere within three years, he is entitled to a farm loss payment of one year's profit of the original holding. This is intended as a payment for the actual loss caused by adapting to a new farm, rather than a gratuity for moving.
Farmers and others may also receive a home loss payment, which is a maximum of £1,500, where they have been displaced from their dwelling. However, in neither case are the claimants entitled to a farm or a home loss payment if the acquisition has been initiated by them through the service of a blight notice. That is the situation where the local authority wants to develop or acquire a piece of land and they wish to move out before the compulsory purchase orders come through.
It is absurd that the law should penalise these farmers who, faced with the prospect of development of this land, are scouring the land market for alternative farms to move into in advance of the development taking place. If a farmer waits until the authority is ready to acquire the land for development, he will invariably find himself in competition for a very limited supply of alternative land with similarly displaced farmers. Such a practice is bad for farming and can cause increases in land prices. Accordingly, in order to remedy this situation, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The principle involved in all these amendments is, as my noble friend has explained, the same. A home loss payment or a farm loss payment is made in recognition of the upset and distress which is suffered by people who are compelled to move from a house or farm to which they have become attached over a number of years.
1464
The amendments would extend the provision to people whose property has been acquired as a result of a blight notice.
The purpose of a blight notice is to enable an owner to take advantage of a right to sell to the acquiring authority at a time convenient to himself rather than at a time convenient to the prospective acquiring authority. Accordingly, the service of a blight notice implies that the owner is at the time he serves it willing to move—that he is not being compelled to move in contrast to the victim of a compulsory purchase order who is being compelled to move.
I can see the force of what my noble friend says: that there is a kind of band of time in which the compulsion is gradually creeping up on you. It may be a question of whether it is a voluntary or a compulsory move. But this is a very difficult distinction to draw if one abandons the present principle, and our view is that the present principle should be maintained. If you move voluntarily, you should not get these payments. If you are compelled to move, you should. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The EARL of CAITHNESS: Obviously I am a little disappointed by the noble and learned Lord's reply on this amendment. I should like him to consider Stansted, where I understand that a planning application for the development of Stansted airport is shortly to be made. It will involve an area of about 1,500 acres and many farmers will be looking for land. If they are given the advantages of being able to claim a farm loss or a home loss payment under a blight notice, this will surely be for the convenience of the local authority and in the national interest.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I shall be glad to draw the remarks of my noble friend to the attention of the Minister responsible. It may be that in that situation, there is some scope for a special case. I cannot say that this will be so, but I shall certainly draw his attention to those remarks.
Lord MIDDLETON: It seems to be splitting hairs to say that a man who goes out a year or two before he is pushed out is going voluntarily, so I am glad that my

1465
noble and learned friend has said that he will look at this.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, perhaps he could write to me on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 317C, 317Eand317F not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 318:
Page 264, line 30, at end insert—

("PART XIIA

NEW TOWNS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1964 c. 26.

Licensing Act 1964.

In section 112(1), in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and, in paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.

In section 112(5) the words "or licensed premises".").

The noble Lord said: The Government accepted a new clause to the Bill in another place and that new clause, which is now Clause 119, brings to an end the special provisions for the granting of off-licences in new towns. This amendment provides for certain consequential repeals in the 1964 Licensing Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 318A:
Page 265, line 8, at end insert—

("1968 c. 52.

Caravan Sites Act 1968.

In section 6(2), the words from "and the Minister" to the end.").

The noble Baroness said: This is consequential upon the amendment moved
1466
by my noble friend Lady David and accepted by the noble Lord earlier this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 265, line 16, at end insert—
("In section 15(2), the word "(3)".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 292 and 293. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 319A not moved.]
Lord GAINFORD Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 319B:
Page 265, line 23, at end insert—

"1978 c. 50.

Inner Urban Areas Act 1978.

Section 14.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 225A, which was agreed to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 265, line 23, at end insert—

"1978 c. xiii.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978.

Section 8.".).

The noble Lord said: This amendment repeals Section 8 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978. That section provides a limited way around the present restrictions upon local authorities advertising the commercial and industrial advantages of Greater London. Clause 159 will remove those restrictions altogether, so Section 8 will become redundant and should thus, consequently, be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 164 [Scotland]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 320A:
Page 131, line 21, leave out ("and XV") and insert ("XV and XVIA").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and also Amendment No. 320B are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 320A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 320B:
Page 131, line 22, leave out ("and 121") and insert ("121 and [Commencement and extent of Part XVIA] ").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 131, line 24, leave out ("II").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 321 and 322 are both for the application of the Bill to Scotland. I beg to move Amendment No. 321.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 322:
Page 131, line 25, at end insert—
(" (3) In this Part of this Act sections 154 to 156 and 159 do not extend to Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 165 and 166 agreed to.
10.4 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 323:
In the Title, line 1, leave out ("relax") and insert ("extend").
The noble Lord said: Even the Almighty decided that he needed a rest after six days. Your Lordships' Committee has decided to extend this Committee stage to seven days. However, there is one other difference: the Almighty started off with chaos and ended up with order. This Committee started with chaos in regard to this Bill and has managed to increase the chaos in the course of these seven days. It may be understandable, if not entirely forgivable, if a Government introduce a bad Bill, but I suggest to the Committee that it is more than lamentable, and certainly
1468
not forgivable if, having introduced a bad Bill, they in addition mislead the reader of the Bill and the public in the description they give to what the Bill is supposed to do. That is the purport of my amendment.
As your Lordships will know, the Bill has as its first object that it is:
"An Act to relax controls over local government".
If one looks at the schedules to Clause 1 of the Bill one will find that by great ingenuity something like 300 relaxations are supposed to have taken place; and if one looks at the relaxations one will find that something like 200 are controls that have never been exercised at all. A few more have been exercised on very few occasions indeed.
With some amount of seriousness I invite your Lordships to consider some of the great relaxations that have taken place. I refer to the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949; the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951; the Slaughterhouses Act 1974; the Commons Acts 1876 and 1899; the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908; the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919; the Town Police (Clauses) Act 1847; the Theatrical Employers (Registration) Act 1925 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. I was almost inclined to invite your Lordships, with Gilbert and Sullivan, to sing at this stage,
"They never will be missed, they never will be missed".
If we turn to the controls that have been imposed upon local government, then the list is more than imposing. I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me, because it is a serious matter, if I summarise the controls that have been imposed, as compared with the almost de minimis effects of the controls that are supposed to have been relaxed? First of all, control over total local government capital expenditure instead of only the borrowing, which was controlled before; detailed controls over the level of expenditure of individual authorities through the block grant; massive and arbitrary penalties on local authorities selected on the whim of the Secretary of State for alleged overspending through the transitional arrangements, quite apart from the retrospective extension of those measures; power for the Secretary of State to make

1469
regulations on the publication of information by local authorities; detailed controls over tendering and accounting procedures and the future of direct labour organisations; requirement that named authorities should prepare land registers; the Secretary of State having power to direct the sale of land on land registers and the means of disposal; withdrawal of local authority powers under the Community Land Act; power of the Secretary of State to direct an authority to make an assessment of available residential land; the replacement in certain areas of local government by urban development corporations and all the things we debated yesterday, which no doubt the Government will long remember because of the Divisions that took place in regard to what was happening to new towns under this legislation, under the Bill as originally put.
I cannot help thinking that if the Government thought that local authorities were going to turn round and say, "For this relief, much thanks", they should indeed listen to the voice of local authorities who now say, "Methinks you do protest too much". It is in that spirit and in great seriousness that I move this amendment, in order that the Bill shall at least tell the people of this country what it is seeking to do to local authorities, and that is indeed, truthfully, in the words of the amendment, to extend and not to restrict control of local authorities. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart): I should apologise; I should have pointed out that this amendment and all subsequent amendments are under the heading of "In the Title".
Lord BELLWIN: I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with equal seriousness. Your Lordships have heard the argument he has put and ours to the point of weariness, and, strongly though the Government feel on this issue, I do not think your Lordships would welcome hearing it all again. On his amendment, I will say this. The Long Title of a Bill, according to Erskine May, should cover everything in the Bill. The draftsman of the Bill before us was diligent in attending to this custom in a complex Bill, which is why we are considering a Title of 18 or 19
1470
lines. The Bill contains substantial provisions which do directly relax controls over local authorities in Clause 1, Schedules 1 to 6, Clause 29, Clauses 78 and 79, Schedules 11 and 12, Clause 106 and Schedule 20, and Clauses 155, 157, 159 and 160.
It is a fact that a number of the controls to which the noble Lord referred are minor petty controls. But if that is so, why did not the previous Government take some steps to get rid of them? If there are more that should go, and I think there are, it is no reason to reduce the importance of the fact that at least 300 are to go. How you can call that anything other than relaxing control, I really do not know.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows I am absolutely in disagreement with him about the effect on freedoms of the abolition of the capital expenditure control. I consider that the freedoms which local government were supposed to have under existing arrangements as to borrowing were in fact a myth. I will not go over the arguments on which I dilated at some length when we debated the point before. Nor will I comment, tempted though I am, on his reference to penalties selected "on the whim of the Secretary of State". I thought I went to considerable length to point out that the transitional arrangements were in no way either arbitrary or retrospective, and indeed the fact that so many of your Lordships supported us in the Division Lobby on them—and that included many of your Lordships who sit opposite—I think proved that the argument was very much our way.
The Bill does end the Community Land Act and not a day too soon; it is little loved by anyone. It was therefore absolutely right to include this phrase in the Title, and it is in the proper position at the beginning, just as the major part of the provisions it is describing are at the beginning of the Bill. This part of the Title is properly drafted and properly approved by the other place. I think it would be a sad day for your Lordships' House when we were seen to be less scrupulous in guarding parliamentary forms than the other place. I believe the noble Lord's amendment, though doubtless a clever debating point, is a very dangerous amendment, and that to accept

1471
it would be to throw the very purpose of this House into doubt. In the interests of all of us in this Chamber, I urge your Lordships very strongly not to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 324:
Line 1, leave out ("government") and insert ("and certain other authorities").
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to the Long Title which has been made necessary by the Government's commendable desire—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, notwithstanding—to pursue their policy of relaxing Government controls, some of which now extend to other public bodies such as river purification boards. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord AVEBURY: I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one brief question while we are dealing with amendments to the Long Title. As his colleague has just said, the Long Title must accurately reflect what is in the Bill and this change obviously is unnecessary from that point of view. But there have been other changes made during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House which do not seem to be reflected in amendments to the Long Title. I am thinking particularly of the amendments that we have made to the Highways Act. Does this mean that at some future date noble Lords opposite will be bringing forward an amendment to the Long Title for that purpose as well?
Earl FERRERS: As far as I am aware the Long Title covers all the points which have been made. Certainly, if it does not, we shall bring forward further amendments. But, to my knowledge, it covers everything.
Lord MORRIS: Notwithstanding that, I would suggest that the last phrase, "and for connected purposes", covers it only too well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 326 not moved.]
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 326A:
1472
Line 16, after ("areas") insert ("to make further provision in relation to gipsies and their caravan sites;").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 327 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.