Lords Sitting of 9 April 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Psychiatric Secure Units
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money is to be allocated for permanent psychiatric secure units in the new financial year, and how many places are likely to be available at the end of that year.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, revenue and capital cash limits for the 1981–82 financial year were notified to regional health authorities on 25th February 1981. Revenue of £10·2 million is available for the development of regional secure units or interim secure facilities. Capital amounting to £6·9 million has been set aside for allocation for approved schemes. The unit at St. Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough, providing 30 places, will still be the only permanent unit open at the end of 1981–82.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply—she will not be surprised if I find it a trifle disappointing—may I ask whether it is still the policy of the Government that there should be 1,000 places in these units, at any rate to start with? And given the rate of progress since the Butler Committee made that recommendation seven years ago this month (a recommendation which was accepted by the Government of the day), is it the thought that this first programme will be completed by the end of this decade, or by the end of this century?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I recognise that there has been very considerable delay in the implementation of the programme. I understand there has been opposition in many places to the establishment of regional secure units, opposition from both staff and members of the public. The noble Lord may like to know that four regional secure units, which will provide 160 places, are already under construction and that another two will be by the end of this year, and they will provide 136 places. The Government are still committed to the programme but I cannot comment on when it might be completed.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the paucity of psychiatric secure units is now a national disgrace, that people are being sent to prison and kept there when they should be treated in these
670
units, and is it not correct to say that in previous years when money was allocated to regional health authorities to provide these units, they spent it largely on other purposes? Does the noble Baroness agree that if money is to be provided in the future, it should be reserved exclusively for the provision of units of this kind?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I accept that there are people in prison who would be better looked after in these units. It is precisely for that reason that the Government remain committed to this policy. However, for the reasons I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, there has been a delay in their establishment. So far as finance is concerned, the money comes from general funds voted to the National Health Service, and regional health authorities have been allowed to spend money which is generally allocated also on the improvement of general psychiatric services.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the very difficult situation in the Oxford region where there has been disagreement between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Regional Health Board, thereby holding up the establishment of a secure unit? And, again, what has happened to the money in that instance?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Baroness, I will write to her about that situation.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will places be reserved for women as well as men and will these units be spread around the country? I understand that one is shortly to be opened in Wakefield, but may we have an assurance that there will be others throughout the country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can certainly give an assurance that the proposals cover units in different parts of the country. I understand that they will be open to women as well as men.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there are a sufficient number of qualified people to look after those in these psychiatric units?
Baroness Young: My understanding is that there are enough qualified people, my Lords, but if I may, I will write to the noble Lord on that issue; and if he has some particular service in mind perhaps he will let me know and I will look into it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I appreciate that the numbers in the units, both permanent and interim, are still very small, may I ask the Minister to say whether any of those concerned come either from prison or from Broadmoor or one of the other special hospitals?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have information about the exact nature of the reasons why people who are currently in either secure or interim units are there. We know, as I indicated, that there are a large number of people currently in prison who should

671
be in these secure facilities, and no doubt there are some currently there from prisons, but I do not have before me information about the precise numbers.

Development Education in Schools
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 contemplate development education playing any significant part in their new proposals for school curricula.
Baroness Young: My Lords, one of the educational aims commended in The School Curriculum is to help pupils to understand the world in which they live and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations. It is for local authorities and schools to decide how they should attempt to meet such aims. For their part, the Government are supporting development education in this country through grants which they are making to the Centre for World Development Education, the Council for Education in World Citizenship and the Standing Conference on Education for International Understanding.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: While I thank the Minister for that reply, my Lords, may I ask whether she agrees that there is a strong difference of opinion on this issue; that on the one hand there are those who think it is crucial that the present generation of British children should break out of the island mentality and become world citizens and that that can be done only if the Government give a lead and assistance to the voluntary organisations, while on the other there are those who think the Government should keep out of it and leave it to the local authorities, voluntary organisations and so on? Where do her department and the Government stand on the division of opinion on this issue?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in our recently published document, The School Curriculum, we recognise that it is a question for local education authorities what subjects they put into the school curriculum. There are five hours of the, day and 200 compulsory school days in the year, and how that time is divided is a matter of great importance. We have indicated that we look for a broad curriculum which includes those general subjects covered by the humanities, and included in that will be an interest in development education. How that is done will be a matter for schools and local education authorities to decide. It will not necessarily be a timetable subject, although it is a subject which may be taken across several other subjects.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, will consideration be given to the possibility of circularising the LEAs with a view to their recognising the increasing importance of the Third World?—so that each LEA looks at the possibility of an across-the-board inclusion of significant instruction on the Third World in its present
672
curriculum, very much as so many of them have chosen to do in regard to the United Nations and its agencies, as well as the Commonwealth.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would hesitate to make a commitment on sending more circulars to local authorities, since that is something which we have set our face against, unless it is absolutely necessary. I would commend to the noble Lord the document on the school curriculum. In it he will see that under primary schools we recommend that children should be encouraged to develop an understanding of the world and of their own place in it, as well as of how people live and work in other parts of the world. As I have already indicated on secondary schools, all pupils should undertake some study of the humanities and this could well include history and geography, both of which can contribute to the development of international understanding.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is it not the case that all political parties acknowledge the great importance of developing the economies of countries in the Third World, although we may differ in our emphasis and methods? Do not opinion polls indicate that among the general public that acknowledgment is certainly not the same as it is among the political parties? Does not that fact point to the very great importance of the question raised by my noble friend, as well as the important need for local authorities, central Government, and voluntary bodies to give much greater emphasis to this subject?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely accept that many people, in particular Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place, believe in the importance of development education. One of the problems with the school curriculum is that a number of individuals and groups of people believe that their particular interests ought also to be taught in schools. There is indeed an extensive list of subjects which should be taught in schools, and the problem is how to fit what must be taught into the time available. It is for that reason, among many other reasons, that we have issued our document giving guidance on the importance of a broad curriculum, and including in that up to the age of 16 a study of English, mathematics, science, religious education, physical education, some study of the humanities, some practical and aesthetic studies, and a modern language. It is in the study of the humanities that development education would come in.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the light of the wish to increase Third World teaching, expressed by teachers themselves in a recent survey of Oxford schools, can the Minister tell us whether the Department of Education has plans to encourage the training in, and understanding of, development education among, teachers in training colleges?
Baroness Young: My Lords, decisions on what kind of teacher training courses to offer and the content of such courses as are offered are, in the first instance, a matter for the training institutions themselves. The department would be prepared to consider any proposals

673
for courses focusing on development education, in so far as such courses required our approval. There are already available a number of courses, for both students training to be teachers and teachers already in teaching service, which focus on related matters, such as education for a multi-cultural society.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree with me that, since up to the tender age of 16 there are so many fundamental subjects to study, the introduction of this highly controversial branch of anthropology and sociology at that stage would be inappropriate? Will she not also agree that at that stage a thorough teaching of geography, in its physical and historical aspects, is much more suitable?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in primary schools clearly the emphasis is on basic teaching in English and mathematics, but the report of the Inspectorate shows that there is advantage in not keeping merely to very basic and simple teaching of English and mathematics and that these subjects can be taught in a wider context, and it is in that particular connection that other subjects are brought in. I entirely take the noble Lord's point that complicated international affairs are not suitable for being taught to very young children, but some understanding of other countries, taught through geography, would be suitable.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in view of the reassuring nature of the noble Baroness's last reply, will she accept that for many people the complicated issues of humanity in a geographically-orientated world are not as important these days as the kind of human teaching that begins at home? Will the noble Baroness not accept that in our multi-national society development education begins not only at the primary level but also in the immediate locality of the school? Is not the noble Baroness as concerned as are some of us in the in-service teaching field that the cut-back in curriculum study in locally-based teacher centres is having an adverse effect regarding the knowledge and importance of a broadly-based curriculum within the educational service?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there were quite a number of points in that supplementary question. Yes, I agree about the importance of the family. Yes, I agree about the importance of the attitudes of the family and of teachers regarding our approach to communities at home, as well as our understanding of affairs overseas. Yes, the department does attach great importance to in-service training.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be prepared to accept an invitation to visit a college which is doing this work at Llantwit-Major (my Welsh colleagues will forgive me for pronouncing that incorrectly) in South Wales? Down there they are doing the international baccalaureate, which covers all the subjects that the Minister has already indicated.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have in fact visited schools which take the IB exam, which has a very interesting curriculum, and I am always glad to consider invitations to visit other schools.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the words in the pamphlet which her department has issued, and which she has quoted, will remain as pious platitudes unless there is some action and support by the Government in regard to the intentions which they express here? Since the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Development Education, which was set up by the last Government and then cancelled by the present Government, has there been any Government support for development education?
How does the noble Baroness equate what she has said with the fact that, although for many years there has been an HMI with specialist responsibility for international affairs, that HMI has now been moved to another post, and not replaced? How does she explain the remarkable contrast between the actions of her department and the words contained in the brochure?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government are to issue a circular—which is now out for consultation—to local education authorities following the publication of the document on the school curriculum. We are asking local education authorities to send a copy of the curriculum document to every school. We hope that it will be studied not only by every school but by school governing bodies. In about two years' time the Secretary of State will ask local authorities to indicate in what way they have looked at their curricula in the light of the document and made adjustments.
The Advisory Council for Development Education was a Quango, the grant for which it was decided to stop because it was felt that the money could be better given direct to the developing world. The Department of Education and Science gives a grant of £28,500 to the Council for Education in World Citizenship, and a grant of £2,500 to the Standing Conference on Education for International Understanding. It is not my business to decide how HMIs are deployed.

Immigration Control Delays
3.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, since individuals are perfectly entitled legally to leave the country with or without a passport, embarking passengers at Heathrow and other airports and seaports are subjected to long delays and considerable hardship whenever immigration officers decide to strike or "go slow".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 empowers an immigration officer to examine any person who is embarking, or seeking to embark, in the United Kingdom for the purpose of determining whether he is patrial and, if he is not, for the purpose of establishing his identity. The schedule also lays down that it shall be the duty

675
of any person so examined to furnish such information as may be required for this purpose, and that an immigration officer may require such a person to produce a valid passport, or some other satisfactory identity document.
The delays recently experienced by the travelling public, which the Government greatly regret, are thus a consequence of necessary checks, for which only limited staff have been available during periods of industrial action.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that interesting reply, which reveals that this bulky net is essentially set to catch foreign nationals rather than United Kingdom citizens. Can the noble Lord say for what reason foreign nationals, or non-patrials, are detained when embarking, approximately how many are prevented from leaving the country in the course of an average year and what percentage that number represents of the total number of people leaving this country? Secondly, is it not true that any foreign national seriously wishing to evade immigration controls has only to travel from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; and, if that is the case, is not this whole paraphernalia of controls on embarking passengers simply a waste of passengers' time and taxpayers' money?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the objective of the operation of embarkation control is to identify and record the departure of persons subject to immigration control. If the embarkation control were temporarily abandoned, some persons admitted to the United Kingdom would not have their departure recorded. The noble Lord asked me how many people are detained, as I understood it, either coming in or going out. I am afraid I am not furnished with those figures. The noble Lord asked me finally whether it did not drive a coach and horses, in essence, through the system that people could travel to the Republic of Ireland. My Lords, almost anything can happen if you travel to the Republic of Ireland, and I have no doubt that driving a coach and horses is among them.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the Act of Parliament that prevents a British subject leaving the country without a passport if he wants to do so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, a person is guilty of a criminal offence if, without reasonable excuse, he refuses or fails to submit to an immigration officer's examination or to furnish information, or to produce a satisfactory identity document or embarkation card where appropriate, or obstructs an immigration officer lawfully acting in the execution of the Immigration Act—and it is the Immigration Act 1971 which is the controlling legislation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that United Kingdom citizens are not prevented from leaving the country without a passport, provided they will sign an undertaking to pay the cost to the airline if they are returned when they reach the country of their destination? But going back to the question that was asked just now concerning immigration
676
controls, is it the objective of the Home Office to record all the arrivals of persons subject to control on a computer, so that when they finally leave the records can be compared with the arrivals, and thus any overstayers detected? If that is the objective of the exercise of putting all the arrivals on to a computer, will the noble Lord take rather more seriously the point which has been made about the Republic of Ireland? Because if anybody can leave for the Republic of Ireland without passing through passport controls, what is the point of the controls?
Lord Belstead: That is a very ingenious question, my Lords, but it has one fatal flaw: we are not talking about arrivals, we are talking about departures. The answer to the question which the noble Lord has asked me is that the point of the embarkation control is that if people come here in a temporary capacity then it is highly desirable to see when they leave.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I do not feel that the Answer that the noble Lord gave to my noble friend's Question was really satisfactory from a logical point of view. He quoted the fact that the immigration officer can require this or can require that, or must not be obstructed, and so on. But if he is not there how can he require anything; and if not even his ghost is there, how can he be obstructed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the period of the industrial action, which the Government very much regret, in fact the integrity of the immigration control has been maintained. None the less, I assure the noble Earl that this is a matter on which we are keeping a very close eye.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in order that the intention of Parliament as expressed by my noble friend may be fulfilled, would it not be better that it should be a condition of service of the immigration officers that they should not strike but remain on duty when required?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this opens up a very much wider field. I take on board what my noble friend has said, and of course I know that my right honourable friend will study it closely.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has a point here. We are not here considering the citizen who has an undoubted right to leave this country obstructing an immigration officer; we are considering an immigration officer obstructing him. Surely the situation should be that, where you get these "go-slows", the citizen who says, "I am walking straight through and the hell with you", is entirely within his rights.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I really think that I cannot do more than I have done, which is to refer your Lordships to the primary legislation under which the immigration officers operate. When there is industrial action which causes trouble with the working of that legislation this is a matter for the very greatest regret, and I hope that this action will be ending soon.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend that, bearing in mind the ever-increasing mobility of the criminal population, whatever he may do to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to arrive in and depart from this country, he will not make it easier for wanted persons either to come in or to leave?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend's supplementary question once again points to the importance of the embarkation control, and I repeat that the embarkation control is necessary for the proper immigration control in this country.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I suggest that we should move on to the next Question. It is now twenty-five minutes past three, and we have one more Question to go.

School Curricula: Guidance
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may let the Minister know that when I set this Question down I had not read the Green Book on school curricula which has emanated from her department.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance they give to educational authorities to ensure that school curricula include key subjects which are relevant to the future economic and technological requirements of the country.
Baroness Young: My Lords, guidance to local education authorities and schools on the school curriculum was published on 25th March. This recommends a broadly-based curriculum for all pupils up to the age of 16, and emphasises that school education needs to equip young people fully for adult and working life, particularly in respect of new technological developments. Specifically, we attach special importance to craft, design and technology in the curriculum, emphasise the need for pupils to become familiar with the use and application of computers, and advise that all pupils should continue with the study of science up to the age of 16.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask her, first, whether her department is happy about the quality of teaching of languages; and, secondly, whether, particularly as regards EEC languages, languages are supplied by the school or have to be paid for by the parents?
Baroness Young: My Lords, what we have proposed in the document is that most pupils should study a foreign language, and we have made it clear that we are proposing some extra research into this matter, because this is clearly a question of how many should learn it and for how long in order for it to be effective. We still have a shortage of teachers of foreign languages, and this is also a matter for concern, as is the
678
fact that most schools tend to study French and not all the other languages of the EEC.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness—
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to congratulate her stall on the way in which they have consulted various bodies on this particular subject? It is vital, and they are consulting them and will be consulting them for some time.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am glad to receive that question.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is all that is possible being done to encourage links and associations between schools and industries, if they exist in the locality of the schools? That is being done with great effect in some places. How general is the practice?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the department has organised 10 conferences in the course of this year—and we have had seven of them already in different parts of the country—with members of the teaching profession, local industrialists and members of Chambers of Commerce. This is one way of establishing local links and of enabling industrialists to understand what the schools are trying to do and enabling teachers to understand more clearly what industrialists require. We attach great importance to this, and implicit in the whole curriculum document is the need of the education service to be talking to a wider world.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision that the Government have made that every secondary school will be equipped with a computer by 1982 is welcomed and will be a valuable help to the generation of children who will therefore acquire the necessary skills and experience in operating and knowing about the possible uses of computers? Would the noble Baroness consider a suggestion that I made some time ago that there should be an organisation analogous to the Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils established with a view to placing bulk orders by local education authorities and achieving the kind of discounts which have saved the universities some £5 million per annum on their purchases?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. This is a matter for the local education authorities but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that, despite all the advice on the curriculum and all the curriculum study carried out in schools and colleges, a great many teachers are concerned about those alienated products of our schools, the children for whom the curriculum has little meaning and who roam the streets of our cities and towns as truants in the first place and as malcontents later?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are very concerned about truancy. No one in the educational world can be satisfied while those numbers are as high as they are. We have also emphasised in the curriculum document that, apart from the importance which the schools attach to academic qualifications, employers and others look for personal qualities of integrity, hard work and the ability to get on with others both for the good of the individual and for their effectiveness in the working world.

Forgery and Counterfeiting Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Right of spouse without title to occupy matrimonial home]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("home") to ("the") in line 9 and insert ("and the other spouse is not so entitled or permitted").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, speaking at the Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that he was flexible in his approach and was prepared to consider the drafting. This amendment is purely drafting. What I am objecting to is, first, that the wording is unnecessary; secondly, that it is not used by any other Act of Parliament nor in the body of the Scottish Law Report; thirdly, that it has the wrong meaning; and fourthly, that it is embarrassing to this House.
First, may I say that it is unnecessary? If your Lordships will look at the first clause of the Bill you will see that it says that the entitled spouse will be called the "titled spouse". This is a little like the geometry teacher who says, "Let us take point 'P' and call it 'Q'." It serves no useful purpose. The meaning there is quite clear and can be made so throughout the Bill. I have suggested in the amendment:
"and the other spouse is not so entitled or permitted".
It could be made clear throughout the whole Bill. I am not attempting to put in the further amendments which will be necessary because I imagine that the Scottish Office would wish to do so if we agree this amendment.
Secondly, this word has never been used anywhere either in other Bills or in the body of the Scottish Law Report, but for some reason which is obscure it has crept into the draft Bill which is attached to the Scottish Law Report. More importantly, this is not the meaning of the word. What does the word "titled" mean? It has nothing to do with "entitled". The word "titled" has only one meaning and that meaning is: a title of honour or nobility. There is no other meaning. And that is what makes it particularly objectionable to this House, for it means that we are legislating exclusively for titled spouses. You
680
have only to think for a moment how this could be used at, say, Hyde Park Corner, where they will be talking of this great reactionary body making laws exclusively for its own benefit. Perhaps I may irrelevantly quote an example of something I heard at Clapham Common, where a gentleman said to another: "Do you know the meaning of the word 'Parliament'? It comes from two French words—'parler', which means to 'speak' and 'mentir' which means 'to lie'." That is the sort of thing that can happen. It is quite ridiculous to expose ourselves to that sort of abuse, and, because I think this word is silly, is an abuse of the English language and is otiose, I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I support the spirit in which my noble friend has moved this amendment. I am not certain that this is the only way in which this amendment could be made. The intention, as I understand it, is that throughout this Bill the words "titled" and "non-titled" should be replaced by "entitled" and "not entitled", which seems sensible. If, because of the possibility of confusion, anybody doubts that, I can recall a Bill which provided a definition of a word and then said, "In this Bill this word will mean so-and-so except where the context requires otherwise". Surely that can be done perfectly easily if it is thought that the word "titled" is in any way confusing.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, may I enter a protest against this drafting? The words "titled" and "not titled" as used in the Bill are not used in the English sense. I was so distressed when I saw this amendment that I did something that I rarely do: I looked in a dictionary and I found that the noble Earl is not quite right in saying that the only meaning of "titled" is a title or an honour. According to the Oxford English Dictionary—and I am glad to say that a large number of Scotsmen still go to Balliol—"title", the verb, means "to arrange under titles or headings", "to attach as a label", "to dignify with a title of rank of honour". In the presence of the right reverend Prelates I hesitate to give an illustration from 17th century English, nevertheless the illustration of the meaning given by the Oxford English Dictionary is a quotation from Milton:
"that sober race of men"—
and that, with the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is a reference to us—
"whose lives religious title them the sons of God".
All that that meant, in the language of the modern Prayer Book, was, whose lives religious gave them the description or label of the sons of God". That is the correct meaning of "title". How can one use that word when there is a perfectly good English word, "entitle", which the same dictionary tells me means, "to give a rightful claim to"? That is the sense in which "titled" is being used in this Bill. I remind your Lordships that the mother legislation, the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, introduced by Lady Summerskill, of course does not fall into this ghastly misuse of our native language. May I conclude by asking whether your Lordships have considered the possibility of a non-titled spouse being married to a titled spouse?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I made reference to this on Second Reading or at the last stage in a rather jocular suggestion that we all ought to declare an interest. There were certain embarrassments in the language. When you read the first four lines it is explained that one spouse is "entitled" and then suddenly they become "titled"; and then "not entitled" becomes "non-titled". It is rather silly. There are so many non-applicant spouses, applicant spouses, titled spouses, non-titled spouses, and we want a little bit of simplicity in this Bill. It will mean that they are not entitled and we say that. Why do we manufacture this new suggestion which is so confusing, if not embarrassing, to your Lordships? I support the noble Earl.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, may I support this amendment for all the reasons stated by all the noble Lords who have already spoken. I do not imagine that the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, will now resist the amendment. Clearly, the drafting is inappropriate.
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I—mercifully!—was not present in your Lordships' House some time after midnight this morning to hear the debate on the English language that occurred then. Nevertheless, it seems to be continued in your Lordships' House. I am aware of the dissatisfaction of noble Lords from all quarters of the House as to the choice of language which has been adopted in Clause 1 and indeed throughout this Bill. One has to take this in two parts. First, does one agree with the suggestion contained in Amendment No. 1 in effect that the words which my noble friend suggests should be put into this part of the Bill (may I say, in many other clauses in different parts of the Bill) which would require the same type of amendment but frequently in rather different words. I suggest that the use of an abbreviation in the form of some kind of phrase or words—shorthand if you like—is both felicitous and indeed convenient. It is a useful way of avoiding long descriptions throughout the Bill.
If your Lordships are with me on this point, and I hope very much you will be because it makes a piece of modern drafting easier to comprehend and easier for ordinary people to try to understand, if in a proper instance a form of shorthand can be adopted, then the question comes as to whether the phrases "titled spouses" and "non-titled spouses" are appropriate in this context.
I have hinted at moments of this Bill that I was not too enamoured of them myself as English. I have been "scratching about"—if that is not too inappropriate a phrase—to see whether something better could be devised. I am advised by the draftsman that "titled" in Scots law has a meaning, although in the presence of noble and learned Lords I say that with some kind of diffidence.
Nevertheless, this Bill is in the Report stage of your Lordships' House and it has a long way to go before it receives the Royal Assent. I assure my noble friend that I was, am and will remain flexible and I am sure that that goes for the Government. I would deprecate
682
his pressing his amendment for the reasons that I gave in the first limb of my argument. I believe that his drafting is not very advantageous, and that some form of expression would help. If I undertake that the Government will consider yet again whether a better phrase or a word such as "entitled spouse" would meet the Bill better than the present phraseology, then I hope very much that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am grateful for the trouble that the noble Earl has given in reply. But it is not good enough to say that he will consider it. Frankly, I do not want to press the House to form an opinion but I really have no alternative on this. There is no need whatever for a term of art. The Bill was written, as the noble and learned Lord said, in 1967 without any term of art in it. I have not put down all the consequential amendments, because I thought the noble Earl would want to do that. I cannot see the point of going on with this.
As for using felicitous expressions, anything less felicitous than the one which the draftsman already put in gives me no confidence that a draftsman will do any better in the future. This House ought to come to a clear-cut decision and say that this word will not do and the Bill can be perfectly well drafted without it. This is only a drafting amendment; I am not constituting the policy. The policy of the Bill remains unchanged. I think that we should divide.
The Earl of Mansfield: With the leave of the House, my Lords, I fully understand that many noble Lords object to this phraseology. It is drafting that we are talking about. If my noble friend says that he has no confidence in the flexibility of the Government, I hope that he has read the Marshalled List of amendments beyond his own at No. 1 and seen, if I may say so, just how many amendments have been tabled in my name to reflect the very genuine and constructive matters which were put to the Committee, both by him, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and other noble Lords. I hope it will become apparent that we have gone a long way to meet many of the valid and constructive suggestions which have been made in Committee stage.
With respect to my noble friend, to take what is really a tautologous point and to say that the Government are not being flexible, is unfair. What I have said is—and my noble friend chooses to disregard this—that I believe very strongly that in order that we do not make a Bill more cumbersome than need be, there should be some expression which is handy and convenient and easily understood and shortening in its effect. I have tried to say that the amendment that my noble friend seeks to write into the Bill will not have that effect because it will have to be repeated throughout the Bill and the same form of words will not be particularly appropriate throughout the Bill.
I have undertaken to take this away again. I have said—and I do not wish to repeat myself—that there are plenty of other parliamentary occasions when one House or other can reconsider this. In those circumstances, it is all that a Government can do to say "Yes, we will look at this again and see whether we can come up with a better answer". If, in those circumstances, my noble friend wishes to divide the

683
House, of course he is entirely entitled to do so. I make no complaint about that; but I suggest to your Lordships in that instance, bearing in mind the undertaking that I have given, it would be most unfortunate to write into a Bill words such as this which I have tried to explain are not particularly happy in themselves.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, this is embarrassing because I can speak only on this matter with the permission of the House. I would be willing to accept readily that the noble Earl has made a big effort to improve many of the amendments we put down, and I am extremely grateful to him. But I feel it is wrong that we should send this provision to the other place with very stupid wording. The noble Earl has said that he will look at it; that is not good enough. If the noble Earl does not undertake to take out every one of those words, I think we must divide.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with the repeated permission of the House, I cannot undertake to take them out because neither I nor the draftsmen have anything in mind to put in their place at this moment today. I hope that your Lordships will think it is good enough for the Government to undertake seriously to look at this matter of language and, if possible, to come up with a more acceptable choice of wording.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister, with great respect, that he would be wise to give way on this matter? Here is considerable legal authority which has pointed to the ambiguity and folly in the language. Why not let it go through on the amendment? There is no matter of governmental pride, political honour or anything like that concerned in this drafting question. Let the Minister give way and, if he wants to come back again to it, there is more to be done on the Bill. Let us not have a stubborn resistance.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, L.

Crook, L.

Amherst, E.

David, B.

Amulree, L.

De Freyne, L.

Atholl, D.

Denington, B.

Avebury, L.

Derwent, L.

Banks, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Eccles, V.

Bowden, L.

Effingham, E.

Brockway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Byers, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Caradon, L.

Falkland, V.

Chelwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Chitnis, L.

Fortescue, E.

Clancarty, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Collison, L.

Garner, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gormanston, V.

Cromartie, E.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

684

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Portland, D.

Grey, E.

Robbins, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hayter, L.

Scarman, L.—[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Seear, B.

Henley, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Selkirk, E.—[Teller.]

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sligo, M.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kennet, L.

Stone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strauss, L.

Listowel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurso, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McNair, L.

Vickers, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Moyne, L.

White, B.

Northchurch, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Winstanley, L.

Pargiter, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Peart, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Mansfield, E.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Milverton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chesham, L.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Soames, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Ironside, L.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wolverton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) if the matrimonial home has been vacated, a right to enter and occupy.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not know whither my noble friend Lord Selkirk is running with his amendment, but certainly I do not regard it as being consequential. I believe it is an amendment in its own right.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon; so it is. This is purely a quest for information. One of the questions I want to ask is this. If a matrimonial home has never been occupied, has it indeed become a matrimonial home? My second question is whether it is possible to have more than one matrimonial home. I believe these are important questions. We have taken on a very big task; we are giving occupational rights to upwards of 2 million homes in Scotland automatically by statute. There is no registration of those homes and so one asks the question, how does one find out which are occupational homes and which are not? This is very different from the English Bill and it presents a number of problems in this respect.
I think it is proper to remember that nearly 350 years ago the Register of Sasines was formed. It was formed for the reason that hurt was sustained by Her Majesty's lieges by fraudulent dealing in land. What was the fraud? The fraud was concealing private rights. We are now creating a huge new range of private rights which are being concealed. This is the policy of the Bill and I am not challenging that policy; what I am saying is that we want to clarify so far as we possibly can how this matter stands. If that is not done there will be some very unpleasant matrimonial causes at law. What I am asking is this. Does this include a number of homes or is it confined to one home, and can a home which has never been occupied become in turn a matrimonial home? The word "provided" appears, but I do not know what that means.
I ask these questions in order to enable the noble Earl to describe the way he sees the extent of this arrangement. I ask this also because if one buys a house in Scotland today, one is always wise to get two signatures—the signatures of both parties—before one can hope to be clear in the title, unless of course it is held by a bachelor or a spinster. I have asked those questions because I believe it is important to make it clear—as you will have to make it clear eventually—exactly where the people of Scotland stand. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I believe I am correct in thinking that the answer to the questions of my noble friend Lord Selkirk are to be found in a very obtuse corner of the Bill which is the definition of the "matrimonial home". Line 11 on page 20 states:
"'matrimonial home' means any house".
Presumably, then, this means that if the person has more than one house it applies to all the houses that he has. I see that my noble friend proposed to amend that to "a house", which would have restricted the definition to one house. Does this explain correctly the Government's position; that it does apply to any house, and that there could be more than one matrimonial home?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, my Lords. The only difference between my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and me is that I deny that the word "obtuse" is the right or proper one in this context. Clause 20 is the usual definition clause and I would remind the House that this was mentioned on Second Reading. It
686
states that a matrimonial home means any house, caravan, and so on
"which has been provided or has been made available by one or both of the spouses".
To take Lord Selkirk's questions: yes, it does include all the matrimonial homes and, secondly, it does not mean that in fact the houses must have been occupied by the spouses as a principal matrimonial home. In other words, if the couple were lucky enough to have a main residence and, say, a holiday cottage then either or both of those could be the subject of an application by the non-entitled spouse under Clause 1 of this Bill. I hope that my noble friend is not going to insist on this amendment, flushed with victory as he no doubt is, but if this amendment was accepted it would in fact turn what is a positive definition into a negative one and it would be more restrictive than the clause intends.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank the noble Earl for what he has said. He has answered quite clearly; that one can have as many matrimonial homes as one can afford, and one can declare a matrimonial home by making a simple declaration without having lived there. That is the purpose of the Bill and I am grateful to know it, though I think it is a little odd. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, leave out (", either generally or") and insert ("only
(a) ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 4. Both amendments take account of the misgivings expressed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Selkirk and by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in relation to the right to renounce occupancy rights in a matrimonial home. I believe that these amendments represent a reasonable and sensible compromise between abolishing the right of renunciation altogether and protecting the renunciation against coercion or undue influence.
The amendment provides for renunciation only in relation to a particular matrimonial home. Because renunciation will normally be a serious step for the non-entitled spouse, it is not considered desirable that provision should be made for a general renunciation which would cover all future matrimonial homes. The renunciation may, however, relate to the existing matrimonial home or to a particular house which it is intended should become the matrimonial home. The amendments, however, make no provision for a person who is shortly to be married to make a renunciation because, as he or she is not yet a spouse, the Bill will not apply to him or her. Even a particular renunciation is a serious step and the amendment accordingly provides that they must swear or affirm before a notary public or justice of the peace that it has been freely made. It is not thought practicable to take the protection of the renouncing spouse any further. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for the amendment. I think I was more concerned about what is now to be subsection (6). Taking into account the whole background of the Bill, and the need to exercise the non-entitled right in terms of a violent husband, and the effect upon children, it would be quite easy, unless we have this further protection here, for that husband to get the non-entitled spouse to write away—it is not a question of swearing, as the Bill is at the moment—her rights. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the changes he has made. This certainly meets the point that I made. I hope that the noble Earl does not take too seriously his defeat in the first instance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("; or
(b) in a particular property which it is intended by the spouses will become a matrimonial home.
(6) A renunciation under subsection (5) above shall have effect only if, at the time of making the renunciation, the non-titled spouse has sworn or affirmed before a notary public or a justice of the peace that it was made freely and without coercion of any kind.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Subsidiary and consequential rights]:
4.12 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 25, after ("of") insert ("non-essential").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in committee and I said that I would take it away and consider it. I am now happy, in effect, to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am equally happy that the amendment is on the Marshalled List and I agree with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Recognition by court of rights of occupancy of matrimonial home]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("non-applicant") and insert ("respondent").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment follows a little on some of the points raised earlier. It seems to me much simpler to use the word "respondent", which is very well-known in Scotland, instead of "non-applicant". In fact, I doubt whether the word "non-applicant" has ever been used up till now. I suggest that the word "respondent" is more harmonious and less confusing than the present word. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that "non-applicant" is not a happy word. I should have ventured to suggest that the word "other" would be much more appropriate here. If you look at paragraph (e) of subsection (1), you find the words,
"protecting the occupancy rights of the applicant spouse in relation to the other spouse".
688
That reads quite well. I should have thought that if you inserted the word "other" in paragraph (c), it would read better and be more in keeping with the structure of the clause. I therefore suggest that the word "respondent" is not the right word.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I support this amendment. I am reluctant, to some extent, to speak upon it, because, unfortunately, I have not been able to participate in the earlier debates on this Bill. But I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that this is an unhappy phrase and is one which, so far as I am aware, is unknown to our Scottish courts. His suggestion of "respondent", too, raises the question of the procedure in accordance with which these applications will be dealt with. This is not, in fact, laid down, as I understand it, in the Bill, and accordingly I imagine—though the noble and learned Lord who is present will know better than I—that the application will be dealt with as a summary application in terms of, I think, Section 1 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. In that case, if the application proceeds according to the procedure appropriate to a summary application, the initiator of the procedure will be the applicant and the person who answers will be the respondent. Of course, I have in mind what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, said, but subject to that it seems to me that the word "respondent" would be the more appropriate drafting term.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not know whether to be gratified by all that is being said. I think I had an amendment down at the Committee stage, suggesting that the proper word, or the most simple word, would be "other", and I drew attention to the confusion and complexities of "entitled", "non-entitled", "applicant" and "non-applicant". But the Government did not respond to that. I am now asked to make a choice between "respondent" and "non-applicant". It might be all right for lawyers, but I do not think that the ordinary person reading the Bill would be confused by "applicant" and "non-applicant". Having said that, I am convinced that the Minister will get up and accept the amendment, but I shall not be very happy about it.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I really must not do anything not to make the noble Lord, Lord Ross, happy and, therefore, I shall not accept the amendment. I am informed by the draftsman that in Scotland the word "respondent" in relation to legal matters has a very narrow and technical meaning, being used in connection with appeals and petitition procedures. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, knows a great deal more about this than I do, as indeed does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. But that is what I am informed. One comes down to the use of technical language and, above all, one tries to ensure that the words are clear and capable of being easily understood. In view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, has said, I will make further inquiries between now and the next stage, although the time is fairly short. In that event, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very happy to do that. On reflection, I think that what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser said is probably right in this case. I must admit that I had in mind much more this rather unhappy word "non-applicant", which I believe is quite unusual, to put it no higher, and it is really in the later parts where some other word could be used. I think that "respondent" is quite a good word, but I shall not press this further. I merely throw it out to the noble Earl and perhaps he will give it a moment's thought. I think that the term "non-applicant" is ugly, and if we could get a more harmonious or felicitous word I should be very happy. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 3, leave out ("in") and insert ("having regard to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 8. These are drafting amendments to make it clear that the factors listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 3(3) are not the only circumstances to which the court should have regard. It is intended that all relevant circumstances—including, possibly, the interest of third parties such as a building society—should be taken into account. The amendment brings Clause 3(3) into line with provisions elsewhere in the Bill, where the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("having regard to") and insert ("including").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 10, after ("which") insert ("(i)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10. These amendments provide that the use to which an item of furniture and plenishings may be put in connection with business or trade should be among the matters considered by the court, in deciding whether to grant possession and use of the furniture and plenishings in the matrimonial home to the non-titled spouse.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for raising this point in Committee. I think that this amendment to Clause 3 is preferable to his suggested amendment to Clause 20. The aim is precisely the same. To use the homely example given in Committee by my noble friend, a piano may not only be a piece of furniture pleasing to the eye and, when played, to the ear. It may also be a necessary tool of a musician's trade. In these circumstances, the amendments require the court to have regard to the fact that the piano is used for a business purpose and the court can refuse the applicant the possession or use of the piano. The same principle applies in relation to less bulky articles which may have both a domestic and a business use. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 10, after ("home") insert—
("; and
(ii) in relation only to an order under subsection (2) above, any item of furniture and plenishings referred to in that subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 10, after ("of") insert ("any item of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment reflects the outcome of the Govermment's further consideration of the provision in Clause 1(5) for renunciation of occupancy rights. It is not thought to be as serious a step to renounce possession or use of the furniture and plenishings as it is to renounce the right, in effect, to a roof over one's head. It may, moreover, be perfectly reasonable for a spouse to wish to keep possession of a family heirloom and to seek a renunciation by the other spouse in relation to that specific item.
The amendment therefore does not provide for attestation or affirmation before a notary public or justice of the peace. It seems consistent that the renunciation should be in writing in the same way as consent for the removal of any furniture and plenishings under Clause 4(4) must be written. It does, however, require that any renunciation must be in relation to specific items only. It is considered doubtful whether it would normally be in the best interests of a spouse (normally a wife) to renounce her rights in relation to all the furniture and plenishings. She might conceivably end up with an occupancy right to an empty house, which would not be habitable.
A renunciation in respect of all the furniture and plenishings could only be made by listing all the various items. In most households not all items are owned by one spouse; a list would therefore make clear exactly what each spouse owned and wished to retain for his or her own use and possession. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exclusion orders]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 21, after ("conduct") insert ("or threatened or reasonably apprehended conduct").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. Misgivings were expressed in Committee, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the Bill did not permit an exclusion order to be granted before serious violence occurred, even where there were clear signs that such violence was likely. These amendments take account of that possibility by providing that the court shall have regard to actual, threatened or reasonably apprehended conduct injurious to the physical or mental health of the applicant or child.
The amendments would allow an exclusion order to be granted if a husband made threats against his wife or children. The court will of course take account of all the circumstances of the case and will no doubt bear in mind that mere loss of temper is not necessarily a prelude to violence. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister of State for the amendment, which meets the point that I raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 22, after ("is") insert ("or would be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, corroboration of the crucial facts to a breach of interdict or in any criminal proceedings will be proved either by the direct evidence of two witnesses or by two or more evidential facts spoken to by separate witnesses from which a crucial fact may be inferred, or by a combination of the direct evidence of one witness and of one or more evidential facts spoken to by other witnesses which support it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the very important point in Scottish law where corroboration is demanded in relation to proving a case. It has been suggested to me that in this type of case, corroboration is one of the most difficult things to achieve. Something happens within the family. Only the husband and wife may be there when the threats are made or when the violence occurs. During the Committee stage I instanced a case that was put to me where the police, having been called to a house, stood outside and listened at the window to find out what was going on. But the husband, being aware that the police were around or were likely to be around, kept very quiet, until eventually the police went away.
It was suggested to me that we should put these words relating to corroboration into the Bill. The wording is not my own. It appears in the Scottish Law Commission Memorandum 46, Law of Evidence 1980, Chapter X, page 71. It may well be that this will be of help in the adjudication of some of these very difficult cases. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and what he seeks to do—and, indeed, his reasoning. However, for the reasons which I shall give, I do not think that this amendment is particularly appropriate. First, it attempts to deal simultaneously with civil and criminal procedure, which could be confusing if for no other reason than that the standard of proof in civil and criminal procedures is different.
As a description of the existing law, which is what the words "for the avoidance of doubt" imply, it is I suggest inadequate and misleading because it does not take into account all the possible combinations of two or more sources of evidence by which corroboration could be established. If one is going to make use of expressions such as "crucial facts" or "evidential facts", there would have to be a clear definition in the statute. It could also be misleading to talk of facts as being spoken to by witnesses. Some pieces of evidence speak for themselves. For instance, injuries can speak for themselves. Torn clothing can, as it were, speak for itself. When a matter is spoken to by one witness, it may require very little else to give corroboration. The amendment does not really
692
convey that impression. I must tell the noble Lord that I think that it could be interpreted as making the obtaining of corroboration more difficult than in fact it is.
In any event, having regard to the practicalities of the situation, I would expect that the applicant spouse will in all cases seek legal advice before deciding to commence proceedings. Lawyers will be under no misconception as to the law on this subject. So far as the criminal law is concerned, this Bill is not intended to affect the substantive criminal law on this matter. I believe that the law of corroboration is satisfactorily dealt with by the common law, and in a statute such as this it is more usual to provide only for exceptions to the general rule. I repeat that in a "for avoidance of doubt" provision it is essential that the law be stated clearly and accurately, otherwise it will cause doubt. Even if this amendment were necessary and desirable, which I hope to have shown it is not, it would need considerable alteration and redrafting before it would be clear and accurate. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, as I said, the wording is not mine; it comes from the Scottish Law Commission. Indeed, it goes further. The noble Earl complained that the words "evidential facts" would require definition. I am happy to tell him that the Scottish Law Commission go on to define "evidential facts" However, I do not want further to elaborate a statute which I think will prove to be fairly complex. I do not want to make it any more complex by putting in these words which the Minister of State was saying were unnecessary. I do not want further to complicate it. My feeling about this Bill is one of danger, and it was underlined when I heard the Minister of State say that anyone using the new rights given here will have to consult lawyers before they exercise them. I think that very fact and the complexity of this matter will mean that many of the people who would otherwise benefit will be put off. So I want the statute to be as simple as possible. I know that there are difficulties in achieving that and I take what the noble Earl said about corroboration, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Derwent): My Lords, in Amendment No. 15 there is a misprint on the Marshalled List: "line 27" should read "line 29".
4.32 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important new right in a very important new Bill. The noble Earl told us how many million homes it would apply to but there is one section of the population to whom it will apply but who will not properly be able to exercise this new right. I do not know what they do about it in England and Wales, but I think it is most unhappy that we should make it clear, as this clause does, that this new right, and the protection of the home that it affords to beleaguered wives and to

693
families whose physical and mental health is threatened by violent husbands, is not available to people who live in agricultural tied houses.
In most things in connection with this Bill I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, and I was very disappointed when he got up and rattled the old sabres about the stockmen and the collapse of Scottish agriculture if we were to give this protection to wives in tied cottages. Why should they be left out? How many of them are there, and how many of those who are in tied houses of the kind that the farmer cannot do without, will be affected by this? I reckon that it would be minimal. I saw a figure the other day which suggested that the number of cases which have come before the courts where protection was demanded and police calls to homes in Scotland had risen, was about 10,000. In half of these it was the family themselves who had called the police, so that takes us to 5,000. I wonder how many of those lived in tied cottages. I doubt whether there were any.
I notice that there are amendments tabled, because it will offend many people in Scotland that we are going to deal with the couple who are living together but who are not married or, if they are married, it is to somebody else and not the person with whom they are living. We give protection there and we give the right to the sheriff to give the non-applicant spouse, I think, three months' occupancy in the first instance and then a further stay in the home, without limit. But this will not apply to the woman in a tied cottage. I put it to the noble Lord that he is worried not about the actual farm itself; he is probably worried about the man losing his job and the woman losing the house anyway, eventually.
I think it is a little unfair. The first thing any farmer with a family like this in a tied cottage would want if he was an unreliable worker would be to get rid of him. So what this seeks to avoid would probably happen anyway but in that case the woman would lose occupancy as well—that is, if we do not allow her to exercise the right. The Government have proved to be flexible in connection with this Bill and I hope they will consider again whether they can give some form of occupancy to the applicant spouse.
I mentioned my own atittude to tied cottages in Scotland as against what has happened in England and Wales with the Secretary of State for Agriculture and other people in Labour Governments. I accepted the views of the farmers on those occasions and we have not had the number of evictions in Scotland which have proved troublesome elsewhere. Of course one of the reasons is that where there have been evictions the person who has to do that is the sheriff and the sheriff usually gives at least three to four months for alternative accommodation to be found. But what we are doing here is leaving no option at all to the woman, other than having to leave the husband—probably difficult in the circumstances—or to stay there, unless a criminal case arises from it, in which case they would probably lose their home anyway. It does not give the right of occupancy and peaceful life to the woman that is given to every other woman in Scotland.
I think it would be shameful if we were to allow this to go through and I sincerely hope that even at this stage the Government will look at it again to see whether they can give some partial occupancy in these cases.
694
I do not say that the courts should always apply this in respect of tied cottages. I would leave it to the judgment of the court. It may well be that the man could get a house somewhere else or could get lodgings in the vicinity and could carry on with his job and it would not be to the detriment of the farmer. That is only one particular case but the people who would know that would be the court and that is why I suggest that we should leave it to the court. We should remember that the subsection says:
"The court shall not make an exclusion order if it appears to the court that the making of the order would be unjustified or unreasonable".
We should leave it to the court to decide and not put into the Bill words which pinpoint the fact and virtually rule out the giving to the applicant spouse who lives with her husband in a tied cottage of the rights that every other woman in Scotland will have. I feel very strongly about it and I hope I have been able to convince the House that there will be injustice if we leave the Bill as it is at present. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sorry to oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord and I certainly do not do it out of any feeling that the tied cottage is wholly sacrosanct, though the fact that the farmworkers approved the retention of the tied house in Scotland and did not want a change in the law seems to show that it is a system that suits them. But really the noble Lord, Lord Ross, cannot say that we can burden a dairy farmer, for example, with yet another risk in the case of a tied house for a stockman. It is absolutely essential, not only in dairy farming but in the case of a shepherd and very often in the case of a tractorman when no one else is available, that he should keep possession of that house and it is not at the discretion of the court because already it takes the farmer some time to get possession and a great many farmers have suffered a great deal of inconvenience. I do not think that in this case it would be logical to say that the hard-done-by wife, if it was the wife, would be entitled to stay in the house and he would have to leave it. There are, after all, on many farms in Scotland, and in the country areas certainly, tied houses which are empty because of the present law. I do not think it would be difficult to find alternative accommodation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Or the husband, my Lords.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: But not if the husband had to go and milk cows on that farm. That makes it extremely difficult. The caring for stock is a very important factor in farming; it is a very important factor in humanitarian terms, as can be seen from the concern expressed in this House for the treatment of stock. I must say that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in this amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, first of all I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that when he deprecated the fact, as he put it, that the new right is not available to people in tied housing, that is absolutely wrong.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I did not say that; I said the exercising of the right.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, what this clause means is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wanted—the court has a complete discretion. What it says is:
"The court shall not make an exclusion order if it appears … that the making of the order would be unjustified or unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case";
and where the matrimonial home is affected it is either:
"part of an agricultural holding"
"a home in respect of which possession is given … by an employer as an incident of employment".
In other words, the wife or husband living in a tied house has exactly the same rights as anybody else in any other house and can come to the court to seek this form of relief. So if the noble Lord is minded to divide the House on this point he must be precisely sure, at least in his own mind, exactly what he is asking the House to do, because, as I have tried to say, people living in tied housing have no less rights than anybody else.
I am quite sure that in many cases Scots farmers will not apply for the eviction of a tenant against whom an exclusion order has been made, although there may be circumstances where they feel compelled to do so. There is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, pointed out, the role played by the sheriff; when it comes to eviction procedure he can give a period of grace for the non-titled spouse to be allowed to remain in occupation of the house. What this provision does in subsection (3)(b) is to draw the court's attention to a possible problem area at an early stage, because it could be that a non-titled spouse might find herself without a home after the making of an order such as this, and it is much better that the court be aware of the possibility when the exclusion order is made.
So the existence of the provision will draw the matter to the mind of the applicant and her legal adviser, and in such an instance I have no doubt that the applicant spouse would be well advised to ascertain the landlord's likely reaction before applying for an exclusion order. As I have said, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said in Committee, in many cases he would be sympathetic, particularly if he gets advance warning of possible labour problems so far as one of his workers is concerned.
This is a matter that the Scottish Law Commission considered. It considered that the court must have the discretion to grant an exclusion order, even where the matrimonial home is part of an agricultural holding. The Government also agree with the commission that in this particular situation the court should have regard to the possible effects of an order. So I sum up by saying that nobody is granted any less rights than anybody else so far as the provisions of this clause are concerned, and it is in fact a help both to the applicant and to the court that an area of possible difficulty is brought to the court's notice as soon as possible, and anyway before the exclusion order is made.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is very nice to hear the Minister of State say that, but if that were true what is the point of the words being there? Why are they there if it is left to the discretion of the court? If my amendment were accepted, the court's discretion would be neither more nor less. The only
696
words that would be left out are those referring to the tied cottage. Why are they there—just to help the court, just to help the applicant? As if she did not know she was in a tied cottage. It is my feeling that these words are there—and it was virtually taken up by the noble farmer, Lord Mackie—for the protection of the tied cottage. This is what everyone else will read into it.
So I am afraid what I said was right. I did not say that the spouses in a tied cottage are denied their rights; they are given the right. But when they come to exercise that right by going to the court, it may well be for an exclusion order, then they are faced with this situation. So they have not got the same freedom to exercise their right as anyone else. It is not my intention to divide the House. There are other stages of the Bill, and I hope the point will be taken elsewhere. I still regret the fact that these words are there. If what the Minister of State has said is right, that it is left to the discretion of the court, the full discretion of the court could be exercised without the words I propose to leave out. I am sad about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("which the matrimonial home is situated") and insert ("the vicinity of the matrimonial home").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would speak also to Amendment No. 26. This amendment is intended to clarify the purpose behind Clause 4(5)(a). During Committee a number of noble Lords expressed some reservations about the extent of the "specified area" presently referred to in this paragraph. I undertook to examine this provision in an effort to find a form of words which might allay some of their fears. I trust that this present amendment will, therefore, go some way towards achieving that end.
It is not the intention that the court should specify an area measuring many square miles. An interdict under the subsection would have a limited application in geographical terms. The amendment achieves this by stipulating that the specified area must be in the vicinity of the matrimonial home. A measure of discretion must remain for the court, in my view, so that the area to be specified may take account of any exceptional circumstances, but it is accepted that the area should not extend beyond the vicinity of the home. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much. This is a great improvement and to my mind gives a completely new colour to this particular episode.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Continued exercise of occupancy rights after reading]:
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. The Bill departs quite a long way

697
not only from the normal conveyancing practice in Scotland, but also from the recommendation made by the Law Commission. I want to investigate what my noble friend has in mind. I should remind the House that I have taken the words:
"occupany of the matrimonial home does not import a higher right than that of the spouse from which it derives",
which appear in my amendment No. 18, directly from the Law Report at paragraph 2.10. Perhaps I may read the relevant paragraph:
"We must emphasise however that the right of occupancy or the permission to occupy which we propose to confer upon a wife will in no circumstances be a higher right or more extensive permission than the right or permission in the husband from which it derives".
The same words are in the Matrimonial Homes and Property Bill which we passed the other night under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. In that Bill it says in Clause 2:
"but the other spouse shall not by virtue of the rights of occupation conferred by this Act have any larger right".
That has disappeared altogether.
I should like to know the position of the occupant wife, for example, or the occupant spouse, in the event of her husband going bankrupt. Does she have a higher right than her husband? Is she entitled to continue there when her husband is there, or is she not? It is clear from the view expressed by the Scottish Law Commission—certainly as I understand it—that that is not the case; she does not have a higher right than that. I must confess that as I understand the drafting of the Bill—and I am probably quite wrong about it—that right does not exist and in point of fact she could continue to occupy although her husband was declared bankrupt or, to put it another way, the trustee in bankruptcy allowed her husband to continue in occupation. If that is the case and they withdraw that continuation, has the wife any continuing right of occupation? According to the Bill she has, but according to the Scottish Law Commission Report she should not have.
I am only raising this matter for clarification because I am a little concerned, particularly as regards third parties, how this will work out. As noble as the ideas may be, we do not want to make this too complex for the people who are in the ordinary business of buying and selling houses—we do not want them to be mystified. Perhaps my noble friend would be good enough to give me his views on the matter because they might be very helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, if the legal title of the owner of the house comes to an end in one way or another, ought not that to obliterate the right of occupancy, whether the right of occupancy is that of the person entitled to occupy, entitled to possession, or the person who is not so entitled? I think that I have spoken long enough for my noble friend to be able to give the answer.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, in short the answer is that this Bill has not altered from the draft Bill of the Scottish Law Commission on this point—that is to say, there is a higher right. The Bill will protect the wife against a contrived bankruptcy and that can be seen in Clause 9, but otherwise the ordinary law
698
will apply. Of course, the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk goes rather wider than bankruptcy because there are other third parties which spring to mind—for instance, building societies or other lenders. One appreciates the reasons for my noble friend's concern. It is certainly not intended that the Bill should prejudice the interests of third parties who have lent money on the security of the matrimonial home, except where the lenders has not ensured that the consent of the non-titled spouse has been obtained.
So in the vast majority of cases, as a matter of standard practice, the consent of the non-titled spouse will be obtained to a dealing which is the grant of a heritable security—the form commonly used by building societies is a standard security. This will ensure that the lender will not be precluded by the Bill from exercising the rights to call up the security and obtain possession in the case of a default in payment. If the consent of the non-titled spouse, who will by virtue of the Bill have an occupancy right, is not obtained it is proper that that spouse should be protected, and in such a case the occupancy right will operate as an overriding interest against any other interests. Subsection (3) makes an exception where the consent has been dispensed with by the court under Clause 7, where the dealing implements an obligation entered into before the marriage, or where the dealing implements a binding obligation entered into before the passing of the Act. I hope that that information will be of assistance to both of my noble friends.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, although I think he said that in the Bill there would be a higher right. In the Scottish Law Report that is exactly what there is not—it says quite specifically:
"… will in no circumstances be a higher right or more extensive permission than the right or permission in the husband from which it derives".
So the Bill is departing quite a long way from what the Scottish Law Report said. I shall not argue the matter further because it is slightly complex. However, the permission which they gave was the permission to the titled spouse, by the trustee in bankruptcy, to live in the house. If that permission were withdrawn then the wife could not continue to live there. That is what they say. I understand from my noble friend that the Bill as drafted would not provide the same—in other words, the occupants of the house could override the trustee in bankruptcy. I may be wrong about that, but all that I shall say to my noble friend is that this is an important point which I should be very grateful if we can in due course make quite clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 38, after ("his") insert ("or her").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 39. These are consequential drafting amendments to achieve consistency following acceptance by the Government of the amendment to

699
Clause 1(2) moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to take account of the fact that an individual, in terms of these provisions, may be either male or female. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 44, after ("dealing") insert (", and any consent shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, prescribe").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. This amendment will facilitiate simpler and more convenient conveyancing practice in relation to the consent given by a non-titled spouse to a dealing by requiring that a statutory form shall be used. It will avoid disputes about consents which could arise if a form is deficient in some way. It will also make it easier for an individual to give such a consent without first requiring a solicitor to prepare an appropriate form. I believe that the amendment will be generally welcomed by those most closely invoved professionally in conveyancing and house purchase. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I agree and I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the regulations will come out at the same time as this part of the Bill comes into operation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not catch what my noble friend said.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the regulations referred to in Amendment No. 20, giving the form in which the consent is to be made, will be in operation at the same time as the Bill comes into operation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, Yes; they must be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 2, leave out (", either generally or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, line 3, after ("home") insert ("or property.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, consequential to what?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, consequential to my earlier amendments to Clause 1(5).
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not think that we used the word "property" there, did we?—because
700
I was wondering about the relevance of "property". Perhaps the noble Earl could define what it means in this particular subsection.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I regard it as being quite properly phrased and, indeed, it is consequential to what I undertook to do.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, by leave, "property" is a very wide term. Hitherto we have been talking in relation to the matrimonial home; we talked about furniture and furnishings. If that is what is meant, would it not have been better simply to put that in?
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, is it not possible that the property might be associated or connected with the matrimonial home?—for example, property lying around the matrimonial home. I understand that the matrimonial home is limited by definition to the actual house and what is required to be used with the house as a domestic home.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in order to assist the House, might this amendment not be consequential on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with leave, that is so. Amendment No. 4 talks about "a particular property", and this is the property referred to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Transfer of tenancy]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("(5A) The clerk of court shall notify the landlord of the making of an order granting an application under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment provides that the landlord shall be informed if an application to the court for a transfer of tenancy has been made to the court. This point was raised during our considerations in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and indeed by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. At that stage I accepted that some form of notification should be provided to the landlord, and this amendment seeks to achieve that. The landlord will already know that the court is to consider the application. The amendment will ensure that he or she, or the local authority, is advised of the outcome, if it means a change of tenant.
Because the non-titled spouse may not always be aware of the making of such an order within a matter of days, it is thought to be fairer to the landlord that he or she should receive intimation promptly rather than depend upon how soon the non-titled spouse learns of the order. The amendment therefore provides that the clerk of court shall notify the landlord, and this is likely to be at the same time as formal notice of the court's decision is sent to the non-titled spouse. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister of State for having taken

701
the point that where the landlord was to be informed that there was an application and had a right to be heard, there was no right thereafter for him to be told. In fact, the words to which I drew attention are still in this subsection. I wonder whether the noble Earl could ask the draftsman to have another look at this to see whether the words "without intimation to the landlord" are not otiose. It reads in a rather silly way:
(5) On the making of an order granting an application under subsection (1) above, the tenancy shall rest in the non-titled spouse without intimation to the landlord …"
and then we put in:
The clerk of court shall notify the landlord of the making of an order granting an application …".
That does not strike me as being quite sensible.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is certainly not otiose, but I shall reconsider the matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 25.
Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a despairing effort to try to get something for the people in the position of seeking occupancy and a change of tenancy in respect of council houses. At the moment this is how it can be done. In this particular section in the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Act 1980 we said that this was one of the conditions under which the landlord, who is of course the local authority, could make the change and get rid of one tenant and put in, in most cases, the wife. That is being removed.
Now the only way a tenancy can be changed is by application to the court, which is an expensive business; whereas an application to the local authority is a very simple business, and the local authority is used to doing it. The local authority is the landlord; it is the owner of the houses. I think that I said during the Committee stage, when I tried to persuade the Committee to this point of view, that the local authority does this every week and every month.
Why should we, in particular cases like this, now suggest that it must be done through the courts? I do not propose to change the power of the courts if an application is made to them. That avenue of change of tenancy will remain. Tenants in Scotland are mainly council tenants and a great many of the wives in such situations are the wives of council tenants. It is very much simpler to go to the council. It will cost them nothing and the councils know all about the situation in the home. Without making any change at all to what the Government propose as regards the courts, we could leave this in the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Act so that a choice could be made by the applicant spouse. She could then make up her mind whether she wants to do it through the court or through an approach to the local authority. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has a point. The more we can keep these matters out of the hands of the courts, the
702
better. The court is there only as a last resort. Obviously, in a case of violence or something like that it would probably be impossible to deal with the matter in this way. But will there not be many marginal cases where it could be quite easy to go, in the first place at any rate, to the local authority and arrange for the change of tenancy? Everybody would then depart in peace.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, surely that is so. If the system—in accordance with which local authorities have been dealing with this kind of situation without complaint from parties concerned—has, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said, worked for many years, surely this right of theirs should be left as it is.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it may help if I set out the position in relation to transfers of tenancy from one spouse to another, where the local authority is the landlord. Prior to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, it is true that housing authorities were effectively able so to transfer a tenancy against the wishes of the sitting tenant. It was necessary first to obtain an order for summary removal from the sheriff, but this presented no difficulty because the sheriff was obliged to grant the order without any reasons being given. Under the 1980 Act the authority must first give the sitting tenant a month's notice of its intention to start possession proceedings and subsequently convince the court that it is reasonable to evict the existing tenant. Any action therefore falls to the housing authority, which may be reluctant to undertake the necessary proceedings when this Bill will enable the non-titled spouse to go directly to the court herself.
The practical effect of acceptance of the noble Lord's amendment would be to provide two available remedies to non-titled spouses. They could either go directly to the court under the Bill, or ask the housing authority to back the removal of the tenant on their behalf under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (which merely serves to introduce an additional stage in the process). In both cases the court will have regard to the grounds for the proposed transfer of tenancy: the housing authority itself will not therefore exercise a crucial discretion because the pre-1980 position no longer applies. As I said in Committee, it was agreed that the 1980 Act provisions should be an interim device in the knowledge that the provisions in this Bill would be more satisfactory. Where the justification for a transfer arises from the marital situation, it is most unlikely that the 1980 Act provisions would be invoked in any event. It is undesirable to have overlapping legislation, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I would say by way of summary that what he seeks to do would not have the effect of going back to the pre-1980 situation—that is, giving a wife the option of going to the housing authority for them to consider the matter and then, as it were, to decide in her favour and get a sheriff to rubber-stamp the application. That no longer obtains. All this amendment would achieve, if it were agreed to, would be to give the wife an extra hoop to go through before she could effect a change of tenancy. In other words, the sheriff court is going to decide the matter on its merits whatever happens, and

703
we think it is much better that she should go to the court on the merits ab initio rather than have to go to a housing authority which itself then has to go to the court to decide precisely the same matters.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think the statement that the Minister of State made was right during the course of his reply to me—that is, that we would be giving an alternative. He says it will be an additional step. I am aware of the fact that we cannot go back prior to the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, because that is where a certain amount of the trouble comes in. It comes in on the basis of the fact that the tenant now has security of tenure, and the tenant is the husband.
But we wrote paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 into the Bill in order to give the local authority the power to go to the court to evict. It is not the woman who is going to the court to evict. If there is an expense, the expense is on the local authority. If I am wrong I hope that the Lord Advocate will put me right. It is not the woman who is evicting; it is the person from whom the tenant has security of tenure. That is the local authority. The local authority would take action. It would still be much simpler, as I have argued, for the applicant spouse, the woman in the local authority house, to get action taken as they do at the moment, because this is the only way they can do it under the Tenants' Rights Act.
I see nothing wrong with that. If they want to do it without reference to the local authority then they can do it directly into the courts. What is wrong in having the alternative? I am sorry that the Minister of State has not seen the advantages for a person in lowly circumstances in a local authority house first approaching the local authorities. They have been used to the procedure in the past, and they have been used to the procedure since the passing of the Tenants' Rights Act. I shall allow the amendment to be negatived. I shall not withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Interdict competent where spouses live together]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 18, leave out ("which the matrimonial home is situated") and insert ("the vicinity of the matrimonial home").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Procedure following arrest]:
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 16, line 21, at beginning insert—
("(1) Where a person has been arrested under section 14(3) of this Act the officer in charge of a police station may—

(a) if satisfied that there is no likelihood of violence to the applicant spouse or any child of the family liberate that person unconditionally; or

(b) refuse to liberate that person; and such refusal and the detention of that person until his or her appearance in court by virtue of—

(i) section 15(2) of this Act; or

704

(ii) any provision of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975,

shall not subject the officer to any claim whatsoever.
(1A) Where a person arrested under section 14(3) of this Act is liberated under subsection (1) above, the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the arrest shall be reported forthwith to the procurator fiscal who, if he decides to take no criminal proceedings in respect of those facts and circumstances, shall at the earliest opportunity take all reasonable steps to intimate his decision to the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) below.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, if convenient. These important amendments come about following an undertaking I gave in Committee to reconsider the procedure which comes into operation following an arrest of an interdicted spouse under Clause 14(3) of the Bill. These amendments will achieve a significant modification of the provisions in the Bill as it was printed, and I hope will allay the misgivings expressed by your Lordships in Committee.
The main effect is to permit the police to release an arrested spouse if they are satisfied that there is no likelihood of violence to the applicant spouse or any child of the family. This is one of the factors which the court is required to consider under Clause 15(5)(b). Since there is obviously no point in requiring the court to consider whether further detention is appropriate, if the arrested spouse has been released by the police, in those circumstances the police will simply inform the procurator fiscal of the facts of the breach of interdict. He, in turn, will advise the applicant spouse and his or her solicitor so that they may, if they wish, raise an action for breach of interdict. Where the police decide to detain the arrested spouse to protect the other spouse and any children, the existing Clause 15(1) is amended so that the provisions of the rest of Clause 15 apply.
In this way it is intended that an interdicted spouse who is arrested for a breach of interdict may be released if the police consider that it is prudent, in the same way as he may be released if he or she is charged with a criminal offence. This will avoid the possible injustice under the Bill as at present drafted whereby the violent spouse could, in theory, be liberated but the spouse who merely breaches a matrimonial interdict in a non-criminal way would have to be detained. The amendments would not preclude the police from detaining a spouse against whom criminal proceedings are not to be brought, if they fear that he may commit violence against the other spouse or any children. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I think that this is an enormous improvement on what we had before. The points I had in mind when I spoke to it have been met. I am not all that good at the details of criminal procedure at an early stage, but I think that this is an enormous improvement.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I approve of this. The only reason I hesitated was because it was probably wrong of me to try to look at this and the next amendment late last night when I was preoccupied with matters of the Prayer Book. I just wonder how this is going to read after it is finished. We have two amendments, Nos. 27 and 28, both of which say

705
"Page 16, line 21, at beginning insert", and "Page 16, line 21, at beginning insert".
I tried to read this, but I could not make any sense of it. Which is going to be first and which second? Where is the word "fifteen" in the clause? Is it part of Clause 15 or a completely new clause, or what? It may be simply that I was confused last night, but I am still confused after the vote of the House on the Bill concerning the Prayer Book. As a good Presbyterian, I didna' vote.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has put his finger on the spot. The clause may now be too long, and the draftsman is considering whether to chop it up and make it into two clauses, so making it more comprehensible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 16, line 21, at beginning insert ("the following provisions of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 16, line 21, after ("where") insert—
("(a) the non-applicant spouse has not been released under subsection (1) above; and
(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Occupancy rights of cohabiting couples]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to tell the House in calling Amendment No. 30 that if it is accepted, I shall not be able to call No. 31.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 17, line 37, leave out from ("other") to ("in") in line 38 and insert ("and are by habit or repute living as man and wife").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of cohabitation and I am wondering whether there has not been an undue mixture in the way this provision has been drafted between what I might call the judicial and the administrative aspects of cohabitation. It appears that if a man and woman are living together for a week-end, they might find they have grounds for a grant of occupancy. True, they must apply to the court, but this differs substantially from the report of the Scottish Law Commission in that that had in mind only a limited period, whereas the Bill makes the time unlimited, it seems. In other words, once people have cohabited, they may be granted by the court an extended period of occupancy when one of the spouses has gone away.
That seems to be putting a very heavy burden on the court. This is not altogether a question of law, but of the circumstances of the case in which the people are living together. I have put in my amendment words which are well known—namely, if a man and woman are living together in a house and are by habit and repute man and wife—which would make the position more understandable. I might mention at this point that there is an error in the amendment in that
706
it should read "by habit and repute" and not, "habit or repute".
I wonder how long you must live with somebody as man and wife before any sort of obligation should arise. Under the Bill we have the obligation of responsibility arising straight away, and I should have thought that was too short a period. One would then possibly be entitled to go before the court—I suppose it would depend on the social circumstances—for an indefinite and continuing period of occupation. True, you would have to come before the court every six months, but by the time you had done that a few times, I dare say it would become nearly automatic.
It is really a question whether we are putting an excessive burden, which is not entirely judicial, on the courts, leaving them to be judges of the whole circumstances of the way in which people who are living together should be treated. I should have thought there was no obligation in respect of a very short period of cohabitation, although it might arise in due course if it continued over a given period. I have suggested the phrase "by habit and repute" because it is well known, but the Minister may have something else in mind. I suggest the provision as drafted is too wide and needs amending. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not know what the Government's attitude to this is, but I could not accept the amendment because I have a certain respect for old Scottish phrases and their meaning. The amendment says the couple
"are by habit or repute living as man and wife".
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I said there was an error; it should read "habit and repute".
Lord Ross of Marnock: "Habit and repute" is the well-known phrase, my Lords, but it refers to people who in what was Scottish law were actually married; they were not living as man and wife but were married and the situation was that people living together could call themselves by their names if there was no other bar to marriage; they were married and that was legal in Scotland. The noble Earl has put the two things together; namely, cohabitation and this perfectly respectable phrase in Scottish law and life.
Nor am I happy about the phrase in the clause, "living with each other"; what is wrong with "together"? It refers to "man and wife", whereas I have an amendment referring to "husband and wife". If the Government will not accept any change, then I shall be reasonably happy with the provision, but I should prefer my amendment to the one now before the House.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: My Lords, in my view the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is right because "habit and repute" suggests they are reputed to be husband and wife, whereas I should have thought the clause was intended to deal with the case of people who nobody supposed were married but whom the general public knew were living together. If that is the case, then the amendment would not seem appropriate.
I wish to raise another difficulty, although it does not arise directly out of the amendment. I find

707
considerable difficulty in understanding what the clause really means. It provides that if a man and woman "are living"—not "have been living" but "are living"—as if they were husband and wife, and
"it appears that the man and the woman are a cohabiting couple … the court may … grant occupancy rights … not exceeding three months … to the non-titled spouse".
That seems to visualise a perfectly happy and stable union of non-married people and then suddenly, for no reason and in the middle of it, a non-titled spouse comes along and asks for an occupancy order. That may be what is intended; if so, it seems very strange. I should have thought that what was really meant was that if the man and woman have been living there for some time and they break up, then an occupancy order can be granted. Perhaps the tenses have gone wrong in the drafting. Be that as it may, I suggest the amendment is not appropriately worded.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, over the choice of phraseology, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. "Cohabitation by habit and repute" is the only form of irregular marriage still recognised by the law of Scotland, and it is, I am informed, necessary that the parties have the intention of marriage, and that need not be the case with persons who are simply cohabiting or living together. The Bill is intended to provide a limited protection to a non-titled partner in such circumstances, even where there is no intention of marriage. The amendment would remove such protection from all but a minority of cohabiting couples. Indeed, this criterion is very much stricter than the period of cohabitation, of three months, which my noble friend was in Committee inclined to regard as acceptable. I do not at the moment propose to speak to my Amendment No. 34, except to say that I think that this is another instance where it is perfectly right and proper for such questions to be decided by the court in its discretion.
I should like to take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the word "are". I do not think it is envisaged that what was no doubt an agreeable and stable relationship at its inception has deteriorated to the point where the parties are no longer living together. The kind of example that springs to mind is one where the parties are still living together, cohabiting, but the relationship has deteriorated so that there occurs what might be called a Friday night incident in which most probably the male part of the union will arrive home, have supped well rather than wisely, and then offers violence to his unfortunate mistress. It is that kind of situation that is taken care of by Clause 16 of the Bill. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord is now content, and that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: Yes, my Lords, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is quite right; I entirely accept what he says. I must say that this was intended as a fishing amendment. I wanted to hear what the noble Lord had to say. However, I am not quite sure about the present situation. Amendment No. 34 refers to
"the time for which it appears they have been living together".
708
It is very difficult to establish when a love match started. One of the reasons for marrying someone is to make the union quite definite. But a couple might have been living together in Cardiff, then in Northampton, and then in Glasgow. How is it to be known for how long they have been living together? This is the problem. The relationship should be related to habit and repute; in other words, people accept that the couple have been living together. I know that those are not the right words, but there should be a provision of that kind; otherwise I do not know how the courts will decide such matters. However, I shall not press the matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("man") and insert ("husband").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the decision of the court. If the court decides that the couple are a cohabiting couple, the most that the court can do is to give the applicant partner (I think that is the correct term this time) continued occupancy for not more than three months. Here I might be anticipating Amendment No. 34, which the Government have very wisely tabled; it is a very good amendment. But when one bears in mind that the court has to decide the time—
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he speaking to Amendment No. 31 or No. 32?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not moving Amendment No. 31, my Lords. I wish to move Amendment No. 32. I am not moving Amendment No. 31 because if it were accepted, then in one or two other cases there would be need to put down amendments.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
5.34 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 18, line 4, leave out ("not exceeding 3 months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32. A period not exceeding three months is the maximum that the court can in the first instance award to the applicant spouse. In the first instance the court has had to decide whether the couple are cohabiting. It has to look at the period for which it appears that they have been living together and see whether there are any children of the relationship. The couple might have been living together for three weeks or three months. On the other hand, as might be within the personal knowledge of noble Lords, some of these couples might have been together for 20 years. It was only fairly recently that we changed the divorce laws in Scotland. It might well be that, because of the bar to divorce, couples have been cohabiting for 20 years—probably for far longer than some married couples. Despite that, the upper limit that the court can grant is to be three months. I am not putting in another figure in my amendment. I merely leave the matter to the discretion of the court,

709
and in order to cover all the cases that might well arise I think that it would be fair to allow the court to go beyond a period of three months if it felt so satisfied. The court might give unlimited occupancy to a particular applicant partner.
That being so, I think it would be quite wrong for the Minister of State to get up and say, "Ah, but it is not just three months, because it is only three months in the first instance, and they can come back to the court which can give them another spell, another spell, and yet another spell". Why should people who, perhaps virtually for a lifetime, have been in a stable relationship, where there might have been a bar to marriage, be put through all this trouble and uncertainty when it is not merited? The only way to get away from that is to give full discretion to the court. We have already decided what the court must take into account in deciding whether the couple are a cohabiting couple. I am perfectly sure that there will be many cases of the type which I have in mind, and it would be unfair to tie the hands of the court to a period not exceeding three months. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I would invite the House to look at this question in a little more depth. In this clause we are dealing with the question of how far, if at all, should the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations for occupancy rights of married couples be extended to two individuals who are living together as man and wife—a cohabiting couple. What does the commission say about the question? It says:
"It is clear that no right can be conferred by operation of law …",
and it could be obtained only by application to the court in an individual case. That has to be compared with Clause 1, which sets out what is a major change in the law of Scotland, and it applies to married couples.
The commission says—I am paraphrasing here—that marriage involves a mutual commitment to be ended only by death or the court. It is a legal estate, and an honourable one, and it contrasts with cohabitation. The commission says that it thinks that the differences between a married couple and a cohabiting couple must be reflected in the extent of the respective occupancy rights which it is proper to confer on them. One wonders, why should it be proper to confer any right upon them? The commission goes on to say that:
"The law should in our view seek to make available an occupancy right which is appropriate to the legitimate expectations of the unmarried partner …".
It concludes that it would be "legitimate" for an unmarried mother to expect to be allowed to continue in occupation of the home—that is the house in question—
"during such period as he or she may require to secure alternative accommodation following upon the end of cohabitation".
At first the commission thought that a maximum of three months might do. On further reflection it thought that that might not be enough, and it suggested that the period should be,
"capable of being extended by the courts for one further period of not more than three months".
That was the commission's recommendation. So what have we here in the Bill? We have a period of three months, capable of being extended
710
"for a further period or periods, no such period exceeding 6 months".
That completely transforms the recommendation of the commission from a brief period—to enable the spouse who is not entitled to possession to find somewhere else to live—to a licence to continue cohabitation indefinitely, against the will of the person entitled to possession, so long as the court is willing to acquiesce. That is the transformation.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wants to leave out the words "not exceeding 3 months" and give the court complete freedom to specify any period of time, from a day to a decade, plus the power to renew the licence at 6-monthly intervals thereafter. It seems to me that the noble Lord has failed to appreciate that to specify the 3-month period would at least give the court, and for that matter the applicant and the legal advisers, some indication of the time which the commission and the legislators have in mind.
It is not all that difficult, after all, even in these days, for an unmarried man or woman to find a room, even if he or she has no relations to go to; but difficulty could arise if there were a child, and I suggest that if either the cohabitors agreed or the court decided that the child should go with the applicant, a longer period than three months might be required, though not necessarily. Therefore, it seems to me that at any rate the period of three months should remain in the Bill as an indication of what the commission and, I take it, the Government have in mind, and, as for dealing with the child, this could be achieved by my next amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the basic view of the Scottish Law Commission on this matter was, first, that there are no legal ties, as there are in marriage, so that the legitimate expectations of the partners should be less; and, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has quite rightly pointed out, the main purpose of the occupancy right for a cohabiting partner in this instance is to provide sufficient time to find alternative accommodation. Secondly, it is right that the Scottish Law Commission had second thoughts as to the form of relief that it wanted to give.
I say that it would be wrong for the right to exist indefinitely, as is presupposed by this amendment, because, for instance, where a marriage breaks down the occupancy right terminates on divorce. It would be scarcely sensible to give a cohabiting partner a longer right of occupancy than a spouse, so the Government feel that the interim provision is right in these circumstances and that three months is not inflexible, because the court can grant extensions. Particularly will this happen, no doubt, where there are good reasons for the partner not finding accommodation within that period, and one supposes that the courts will go into all these matters before granting an extension.
Again I think that the criteria, if you like, or the matters which a court will have to take into consideration, are set out, as it were, in Amendment No. 34, which I shall not refer to any more. I think that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will see that in fact his amendment would give a partner far greater rights than were ever thought proper by the Scottish Law Commission and greater rights than have been given to a married partner in these circumstances.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not think so. They have not got the right to go to the court for a change of tenancy; and, of course, the extent of the right will depend on the judiciary. It will be absolutely open to the judiciary, first to turn down the application or, secondly, to grant two months, three months, four months or six months. I am prefectly sure that within his legal experience the Minister of State must have come across cases where it would be unfair to differentiate to this extent, and to limit the initial period of protection to three months, with the periodic trailing to the court for another six months, another six months and another six months. Why not leave it to the courts? Why not trust the courts?
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 18, line 5, after ("that") insert ("where there is a child of the cohabiting couple living with them").
The noble Lord said: I do not think I need speak at any length on this because I believe I have made the point already. It is quite a clear one. In my view the initial three-month period will probably do where there is no child, but where there is a child more permanent arrangements may have to be made, obviously, and they may go on for quite a time. But if, as I presume to be the case, what is involved here is the substitution, so to speak, of one tenant for another, or indeed of one occupier for another, at any rate—and it seems to me that that is bound to be the case—then the shorter the period the better. Either you are going to go through a transfer of occupancy of the house for a considerable time or else at the end of the period that is laid down as a maximum by the court, whether increased or not, the original occupier is presumably going to come back; but he is almost bound to be excluded unless it is possible to divide the house, and that may very often not be possible.
So, as I say, the most likely situation in which the house will be handed over from one to the other, from the one with the legal title to the one without, is where there is a child and where whichever of the spouses has custody of the child will continue to occupy that house with the child or children, and will bring them up there. Therefore, I would have thought that extensions of the period are only justified where there is a child. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I accept that one of the main justifications for the extension of the initial three-month period of occupancy rights in the house is to protect innocent children from suffering unreasonably from the breakdown in the relationship of the cohabiting couple. But there may be other dependent members of the household—there may, for instance, be an aged parent of one or other of the partners—and I suggest that they, too, should be considered. I certainly do not consider it desirable to fetter the court's discretion in this way. Normally, courts will have regard to the presence or otherwise of children, and I have no doubt that an extention will be granted less readily where there is no impediment to the non-titled partner finding and moving to a new address on his or her own.
712
The requirement that the child should be living with the couple conflicts with the definition in Clause 20 of "child of the family", which includes a child who could normally be expected to reside with one of the parents. So, for instance, if there was a child who was unfortunately enjoying (if that is the word) a long stay in hospital, such a child would be excluded by this amendment.
In summary, I think that my view, and certainly the Government's view, is that to require the court to have regard to the existence of the children is one thing, but to try to fetter the court's discretion to act in a particular way is quite another. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will see the force of my Amendment No. 34, and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I certainly accept (in fact, I noticed it myself after putting in the amendment) that the words "residing with" are not appropriate. The child might be temporarily residing elsewhere; but that is a matter that could easily have been amended. I recognise there are other conditions that the court may have to take into consideration. I do not propose to press this amendment, but I intend to make clear my view that the number of considerations which would warrant the court continuing for a considerable time the occupancy of the partner with no title to the house are limited and they should be used with discretion. "Discretion" is the word. There is a wide discretion given to the courts in this matter, far wider, in a way, than is given in the rest of the Bill. I am sure that that is proper but I think we ought to lay down broad lines within which that discretion should be used. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 6, at end insert—
("(1A) In determining whether for the purpose of subsection (1) above a man and woman are a cohabiting couple the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case including—

(a) the time for which it appears they have been living together; and

(b) whether there are any children of the relationship.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Committee I undertook to consider further the definition of "a cohabiting couple" and, in particular, to take account of some of the factors which my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested. Two of them were whether there are any children and, secondly, how long the couple have been living together. However, I remain of the view that the courts are well able to reach a sensible conclusion in such eventualities. It is not therefore intended that rigid criteria shall be laid down to fetter the courts' discretion but rather that the courts shall be required to have regard to certain factors. At the end of the day the court will make up its mind on the basis of all the facts made known to it. The particular factors mentioned in the new subsection would almost certainly be considered by the court in any event, but the Government acknowledge that there is advantage in their inclusion in the Bill as unambiguous guidance for the court's benefit. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am grateful for the improvement here. I cannot wholly agree that this is a judicial matter. Of course, the courts can come to any decision, but to a great extent this is not a judicial matter. I take it it will be the sheriff's court. It is difficult for them to do. I agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that we ought to try to give them more guidance if we can. If the courts themselves are happy to deal with this—and I must say it is a difficult one—I do not think I will comment more than to say that it is a step forward. It does not go as far as I think it ought and I think it will be a difficult decision for the courts to take.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I say that, unless it is already clear on the face of it that the couple are cohabiting, it will be extremely difficult on the basis of certainly the first consideration—the time in which it appears they have lived together—for the court to come to any decision. There are hundreds and thousands of men looked after by women who, without being married, live under the same roof for many years. They do not cohabit in the ordinary sense of the word. I suppose it may be that at some stage for some reason an application might be made. I suppose it will be a rarity but all the same there is the possibility. I do not deny that the consideration is germane, but I doubt whether it should be elevated into one of the two main criteria in this case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("of") and insert ("residing with").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to provide for the interests of children who are living with the cohabiting couple but are not the product of their liaison. For example, one or other of the partners may still be caring for the children of a previous marriage or relationship. It is intended that the safety of all the children of the household should be protected. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the only point is that you leave out a disabled dependent who might be there, too. It may be a remote chance and perhaps we should not carry it too far. He may not be a child; he may be disabled and dependent on perhaps the mother to look after him. I ask the noble Earl to look at that.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this is a permissive part of the clause and not exclusive. It may be that other relatives or people who are being looked after by one of the partners could be considered by the court when it has regard to all the circumstances of the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 18, line 19 at end insert ("and the words "The court" to "matrimonial home; and" at the beginning of subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose I shall be told by my noble friend that this amendment is not necessary. What it does is to spell out some words
714
in subsection (3) being applied to Clause 16. The text reads:
"section 3, except subsection (1)(a)".
Subsection (1) of Section 3 states:
"Where there is a titled and a non-titled spouse, or where both spouses are entitled, or permitted by a third party, to occupy a matrimonial home, either spouse may apply to the court for an order—
(a) declaring the occupancy rights of the applicant spouse".
In this case there would not be occupancy rights; and then subsection (3) again relates to subsection (1)(a). I am not sure whether this is necessary because it may be that, once you block out (1)(a), you also block out the first few words of subsection (3) which this amendment would propose to add to the end of this particular line of the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me. I thought it worth putting it down, just in case.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's intention in moving this amendment. However, I am advised that it is not essential since by disapplying subsection (1)(a) in the first place, any subsequent references to it are automatically disapplied, too, since this is a necessary modification.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, before leaving subsection (3) may I thank my noble friend for the amendments that he made earlier following upon suggestions that I made. I had omitted to thank him earlier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Drumalbynhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 37:
Page 18, leave out line 23 and insert ("section 12, where and only where there is a child of the family;
sections 13 to 15;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is along the same lines as an amendment I moved before. Therefore, I shall not move this amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 18, line 27 at end insert ("where the cohabiting couple are cohabiting").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a textual amendment. It seems odd to replace the words "matrimonial home" just with "a house". I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am again grateful to my noble friend but I do not think his amendment is strictly necessary. If one goes to the earlier part of the subsection one sees that it reads:
"(2) If an application under subsection (1) above is granted, or if both partners of a cohabiting couple are entitled, or permitted by a third party, to occupy the house where they are cohabiting, the following provisions of this Act …".
It is not strictly necessary. If my noble friend is rather determined on this point and is minded to shout "Content", then I shall not shout "Not-Content".
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will this mean in any way a change in the definition of matrimonial home?
The Earl of Mansfield: No, my Lords.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, while I am on my feet, may I apologise to the Minister of State? I misled the House a short time ago when I said the applicant partner had no right to apply for a change of tenancy. The partner has a right. I was misled by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in an amendment that he did not move, was going to make a change in respect of Clause 12 to limit that right.
Lord Drumalbyn: I am very grateful, my Lords. I do not know what to say. On the whole, the fewer the words the better. If my noble friend is satisfied that the words are unnecessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 19, line 11, after ("his") insert ("or her").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 40:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble Lord said: This shows clearly, my Lords, that I am not enamoured with this clause. I regard it as a blemish on a very considerable and desirable social reform. Clause 16 is fundamentally different from the rest of the Bill. Clause 1 confers for the first time in Scotland a new right of occupancy on a marriage partner who has no legal title to occupy of the matrimonial home.
The Scottish Law Commission intended this statutory right to be what it called a normal incident of marriage, not just a right to be involved and conferred by a court in moments of marital stress or crisis; whereas this clause deals with cohabitation which is no more than an illegitimate relationship to marriage. Cohabitation involves no legal rights or obligations. It is not marriage and there is no matrimonial home. It has no place in the Bill dealing with marital rights, in my view. Wisely, the Scottish Law Commission did not attempt to equate the protection given to partners who cohabit with that given to married couples.
The occupancy rights proposed in the Bill for a non-entitled cohabitor are enjoyed not as of right but at the discretion of the court and for a period limited by the court. Such limitations in themselves raise problems. I do not think we have adequately discussed this limited extension of the principle of occupancy rights to cohabitors. My reason for moving this amendment is to draw attention to that view of mine which other noble Lords may share. It is too late to discuss this at length now. I feel that more consideration, study and research is needed before Parliament commits itself to such an extension. I hope that it will get this further consideration when the Bill moves to another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's concern about these matters. If I say to him that it might have been better if we had dis-
716
cussed the matter in Committee, I hope he will not think that I am offensive. It would have perhaps led to a better debate than is possible in a rather discursive and wide-ranging subject as the rights of non-married people living together would normally enjoy.
I hesitate to say this but in England and Wales now for some years there has been a growing if still limited judicial and legislative acceptance that there are circumstances when legal remedies which are applicable and available to married couples should also be extended to couples that were not married. I think that there is no area where it is more fitting and proper that these rights should be extended than in the field which is all too common and tragic where very frequently women are the subject of violence in the matrimonial home from their husbands or partners in this instance. I hasten to say that I do not take a sexist view of this matter any more than the Bill does. It is very careful not to draw distinctions between the sexes at any point at all.
I think that in common sense we must all appreciate that this problem of battered wives is a growing one. It is one which society must recognise. In my view, quite rightly, the Scottish Law Commission have reflected the view which is growing throughout the United Kingdom that these unfortunate people deserve the protection which the court can provide in such instances. That is the reasoning behind the inclusion of Clause 16 in the Bill. Speaking for myself, it is one I heartily approve of and endorse. How far that protection should go is no doubt a matter of argument and degree. All the Government can do in such instance is to take account of the views which have been expressed from many different quarters and to reflect those views by inserting a provision such as this into this particular Bill.
I appreciate that my noble friend's concern is not to withdraw such rights from unmarried people living together so much as to reflect his unease at the way in which the law is moving. I think it is a matter which courts are perfectly able to investigate and determine. If I have any quarrel with my noble friend Lord Selkirk, it is that, certainly from my experience at the English Bar, courts have absolutely no difficulty in establishing the facts where one gets matrimonial conflict, and they do their best to provide equitable and fair relief. It may not be a duty which either the judge or indeed the practitioners particularly enjoy. Nevertheless, it is something which courts are well able to do and which they do, unfortunately, on a daily basis in all the courts of our land.
For those reasons I am quite sure these matters will be gone into at considerable length in another place. It is right and proper that they should, but as we have this clause now as amended, I think it is a good clause in that it can provide a welcome measure of protection to people in this particular situation. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will take the same view.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, may I say that I am very glad indeed that the Minister has resisted the amendment to leave out the whole clause. It does not mean to say that we approve of the tendency of people today to by-pass marriage for one reason or another; but let us remember what we are dealing with, and what led originally to the Bill was the need for protection.

717
We are talking within the context of violence in the home, whether it is a matrimonial home or whether it is a home inhabited by a cohabiting couple. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be satisfied to accept the position that there is almost an invitation to violence where we do not afford the protection of the courts and the right to continued occupancy.
We have to face the fact that this position exists. We may not agree with it or approve of it but we have to face the consequences; and if we are trying to curb violence and, if we fail to do that, to prevent the family from being treated in such a manner as would injure them physically and mentally, then we cannot deny that protection to this new form of relationship, which does not amount to a husband-and-wife situation but to something similar thereto. It is the violent aspect of it and the occupancy aspect which is a consequence. It is that we are dealing with, and I think we would be very unwise indeed to seek to remove Clause 16.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am delighted at the optimism of my noble friend and I hope he is right. I confess that I find it a little difficult to accept cohabitation as being halfway to marriage. I do not really know whether one can take that view, but that is what this Bill seems to do. I do not know whether statutory rights at law of cohabiting couples have ever been put before the House prior to this, but I am bound to say I think my noble friend ought to look a little more closely at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said.
Supposing a man and wife are not living together, does the clause fall? I do not know, but on the face of it, it does. I do not think that is the intention. Also, I have been wondering what evidence will be given when the court is asked for another six months. It is going to be very difficult for the court to turn that down. I have no doubt somebody else will be saying, "the house should be vacated now", but it is going to be a very difficult decision for the court and I only hope it will not cause undue difficulties to the sheriffs concerned.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what noble Lords have said on this question, which I recognise is a difficult and somewhat distasteful one. One does not like to challenge a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission on a matter of this kind, but I cannot help feeling it might have been better to have obtained experience of the working of the rest of the Bill before introducing this clause, which could have been introduced as a separate Bill and possibly elaborated to a considerable extent. There is the fear that the right to seek occupancy from the court will be abused. If this is retained, we shall just have to wait and see. Human nature is not that straightforward, and there are possibilities for blackmail and the like. I am not sure, either, that we can be really satisfied that the question of violence cannot be dealt with in other ways. There is already legislation for England, I believe, which deals with violence in the home in other ways.
I hope it is not being suggested that I have taken a sexist view; that was mentioned by my noble friend.
718
He himself said that he had not taken a sexist view, and I do not either. I think the abuses can be both ways in a case like this. My noble friend also mildly rebuked me—I am grateful for the mildness—for not having raised this before. He is quite right. However, it was only during the course of the Committee stage that I started—let me confess it—to consider the whole Bill seriously. He suggested this question should have been considered at greater length in Committee stage. I think I am right in saying that only four Peers spoke on Committee stage and there were far fewer Peers here then than there are now. There it is. I apologise to my noble friend for not having gone into this before. His tone indicated that in his view this is a clause which ought to have been discussed at greater length and at an earlier stage than it has been.
I cannot help deviating a little from this particular amendment and wondering whether, in dealing with Bills of this kind which are introduced into the House of Lords for the first time, it would not be better to take the Committee stage elsewhere. In such a case almost certainly more Scottish Members would be present than are here now. It could be dealt with at greater length and more fully; and of course it is always open to any Peer who is not "of the committee", as we say, to attend and speak. I am inclined to think that a social Bill of this kind, when introduced into your Lordships' House in the first place, is best committed to a committee elsewhere.
I have nothing further to say on this except that I was advised it was right, in leaving out this clause—the only one which deals with cohabitation—to cut out the references in the Title to cohabitation. I do not propose to move the later amendments, and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Interpretation]:
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 19, line 39, after second ("child") insert ("of whatever age").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this amendment with some hesitation because I am not sure that the phraseology is such that it will achieve what it is intended to achieve. Therefore I shall move it formally and it may well be that if noble Lords have matters to put forward in connection with it I will consider it again. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it may seem odd, but I think it is a good thing.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: My Lords, may I say I think that the noble Earl is quite right not to press the wording of this amendment. In my view, it is obviously unhappily worded, because if this amendment were made the definition would then read:
"'child of the family' means any child of whatever age who resides with or who could normally be expected to reside with either spouse;".
It does not say whose child, so that it means any child of any person of whatever age who resides with them

719
—that is what it means. If that is what is really intended, then the words "second child" ought not to be there. It ought to be the word "person" and then we would have:
"'child of the family' means any person of whatever age who resides with or who could normally be expected to reside with either spouse;".
That is what it means, but I do not suppose for a moment that that is what the draftsman intended. He has fallen into confusion.
If one talks about "any child" then that child may be young or old; he may be an adult. I am the child of my mother and father, but I am no longer a child. If one is going to talk about a child of whatever age without saying who's child, then one necessarily means a person in their minority who is not yet a grown-up person. This clause has fallen into the error of muddling up the two things. I venture to suggest that what is really intended is something such as the following, even though it is a hasty drafting and not one that I suppose will pass muster:
"'Child of the family' means any child of either spouse and any person who has been accepted as one of the family by both spouses, whatever the age of such a child or person may be".
I have adapted that from the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1958, which talks about a child of one spouse who has been accepted into the family by the other. That seems to be the sort of underlying notion here, except that in this case it has to be accepted by both spouses. As it stands, the amendment is wholly unsatisfactory in my view.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting forward his doubts, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 not moved.]

ECC 19th Report: Common Agricultural Policy
6.21 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Commission's reflections on the Common Agricultural Policy (12271/80) and on the proposals for fixing agricultural prices 1981–82 (5091/81) (19th Report, H.L. 126).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have the privilege of moving this Motion because the regular chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has been indisposed during this last month and he asked me to take over the handling of the report to which the Motion refers.
I am aware that we had an agricultural debate not very long ago—on 15th March to be precise—but I make no apology for this debate, which relates specifically to the common agricultural policy and the price review, as opposed to the more general nature of the earlier debate. I must give my gratitude to the sub-committee who gave me tremendous support and
720
indeed enabled me to make my contribution to dealing with what was a very speedy operation, as I will shortly describe.
I should also like to offer my gratitude to the clerk and to the special adviser who helped us under these somewhat difficult circumstances to produce the report and to do so very quickly and very well. Finally, I should like to acknowledge the help that we received from various ouside bodies who gave us both written and oral evidence—but as your Lordships will see when you get Volume 2 of this report, which sadly is not available at this stage because of the rushed nature of our process in handling it, we were able to take oral evidence only from a selected few people; in particular the Minister. I should like at this point to say how much we appreciated the Minister giving evidence to us and the skill with which he had clearly grasped his subject, and also the openness with which he gave answers to practically every question that came his way. We were indeed most grateful for that.
We also took evidence from the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Very belatedly—but we did try to fit it in—we took evidence from consumers. That was all we could achieve. The reason for this was that we received the price proposals from the Commission for consideration only about four weeks before the Ministers made their decisions on them last week. That gave us four weeks to do all this work. This was due in part to the fact that we have a new Commission, and so therefore they were not able to start work until it was a little late, and also because of the sad death of Mr. Gundelach, which slowed it down a bit more.
Having said that, I personally feel as, I am sure, does the sub-committee—and indeed we make this point in the report—that the time limit within which one has to consider the Commission's proposals for price review are always too short. When considering this it did occur to me that we are part, as it were, of the bureaucratic machine, but I believe one can be slightly more conscious of one's own contribution in this affair if one considers that we are genuinely seeking to take evidence from people in a way that, generally speaking, the Commission and many others have developed a high regard for; and not only ourselves but also, one imagines, similar bodies in other countries of the Ten would seek to do the same. If they do not do so, then perhaps they should in order to provide the guidance to their own Ministers from a wider background than they might otherwise get. It seems to me that this very short time scale is something that is thoroughly reprehensible and one to which the Commission could well give very special attention in order to try to make proposals a little earlier or seek to wind up their conclusions a little later.
We did talk to my right honourable friend the Minister about this aspect when he was giving evidence, and to a certain extent he was sceptical about the possibilities of finding some way of doing this. He was sceptical because, on the one hand, if the Commission puts up its proposals too soon it will find there have been changes in world markets subsequently and the proposals would be even more of a nonsense than perhaps people sometimes think they are anyway. On the other hand, if one leaves it too long before Ministers

721
arrive at any conclusion as to how the proposal should be accepted or modified, the result will come too late for those such as farmers and processors, and indeed all other bodies concerned, to take their actions consequent upon the decisions. So this is a very knotty problem. However, in his evidence the Minister said—and I personally attach importance to this—that he hoped to take advantage of the British presidency of the Council in the latter half of this year to discuss with his colleagues how the process could be improved, and in particular how a more orderly process might be introduced.
Your Lordships will be aware that in the report of the Select Committee on the common agricultural policy about a year ago we recommended that there should be a five-year rolling programme. For the reasons that I have already advanced with regard to lengthening this time interval between proposals and conclusion, this—as the Minister pointed out—has its difficulties, because of the fluctuating state of the world market in all the commodities which are the concern of the common agricultural policy. However, he said—and he quoted milk as being a particular area in which this might be applied—that there must be some attempt, which, in his opinion, there had not yet been, to have a long-term plan for how to handle that kind of commodity. The more of a long-term underlying plan there is, the easier it will be to make price proposals based on a firm foundation each year, and the easier it will be for the farmers, the processors and other persons concerned, to make their own long-term plans, which they would so dearly like to do.
So I believe that this whole question of the timetable is extremely important, and it is because one had to deal with this so quickly that one found oneself debating the subject after the Council of Ministers had made a decision. In another place, they most valiantly managed to get their debate in before the Council of Ministers' meeting to arrive at their conclusions. But they had to rush their affairs just as we did. I must confess that I think that in our Select Committee we rather thought that the Ministers would not reach a conclusion quite so quickly, and that we would therefore still, at this stage, be giving them advice.
However, there has been a further complication which is symptomatic of the same rush situation. That is that, because of business in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister had to make his Statement to another place last Friday on what happened when the Ministers made their decision. I understand—if he will not object to my saying this at this stage—that my noble friend the Minister of State is going to take advantage of this debate to do your Lordships the courtesy of commenting upon the Statement, when he addresses us shortly. I hope that my noble friend will not take it amiss if, in the further remarks that I have to make, I remark upon what his and my right honourable friend said last Friday, in anticipation that he will be saying something rather similar when he comes to speak.
I do not propose to conduct a detailed post-mortem of the Commission's proposals and I can, I am sure, rely on my noble colleagues on Sub-Committee D to make their comments on those areas of the proposals and the conclusions which affect themselves. But I
722
think one can say—and this is an example of the good news first—that there are good points in the Council of Ministers' conclusion. We note with satisfaction that it agreed to certain things which are of particular concern to the United Kingdom, on which the committee's views in the report coincide with the position adopted both by our Minister and by the Council's decisions: for example, no revaluation of the green pound; continuation of the variable premium arrangement for beef and maintenance of the school milk programme. I also welcome acceptance of the continued butter subsidy and, especially, the special support for Northern Ireland, bringing it more into line with the Irish Republic, and an assurance of continuing arrangements for New Zealand butter and of whisky refunds.
On the general level of price increases, which are reported to be of the order of 9·5 per cent. on average, as against 7·8 per cent. which was proposed originally by the Commission, we note that this does not square with the committee's conclusion in the report, that the level of the Commission's original proposals should not be exceeded. I am turning, as your Lordships will see, to what my noble friend on the Front Bench may think is the bad news—the points with which we disagree.
Moreover, such measures as have been adopted under the general description "co-responsibility" appear likely to have little effect in restraining surplus production. I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 64 and 68(ii) in the report on that point. In particular, on milk, which is responsible for over 40 per cent. of the costs of the common agricultural policy, decisions appear very much at variance with the report's conclusions: almost average price increase; no super-levy—despite the Council's undertaking last year to implement it if production continued to increase, which it has done—and discrimination in the existing "linear" levy aggravated by ½ per cent. increase. All those are points which we consider do not meet either the recommendations in the report, or what we believe the Commission is basically trying to achieve.
My right honourable friend's Statement in another place said that the Council agreed to a 1981 budget provision for milk fixed at 10 per cent. below the previous year, and the need to ensure that the 1981 budget provision for milk was not exceeded. He went on to say:
"Council would take measures should they prove necessary, to limit surplus production and contain budgetary costs".
My right honourable friend also said that the Commission declared that package consistent with ensuring a rate of increase in agricultural expenditure in 1982 close to, or if possibly below, the rate of increase in "own resources." The Council
"undertook to adopt in good time any further measures which should prove necessary to achieve this objective".
I suggest to your Lordships that there are several apparent inconsistencies in what I have just been saying, and that the budgetary implications of this settlement require detailed, and sceptical, examination.
Before moving on to that, I should like to add one point. I hope that my noble colleagues, or some of them, will be advancing strongly the views of the farmers when they come to speak, but I should like

723
at this stage to say a few words with regard to the food processors. I must, of course, declare an interest in that I am employed by the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, which is a trade association looking after the manufacturers of those products. I get the general impression from what I have read that the farmers, though traditionally never satisfied with anything, seem to think that this settlement is something which they can live with, but I do not think that the food processors could be said to be as happy. This point needs to be made.
May I summarise their disappointment and the points that they make? First, they say that many EEC farmers will receive price increases above the inflation rate in their countries, and even further out of line with the movements in world prices. They also say that the settlement will transfer regressively funds from consumers—"consumers" in this respect includes processors, because they consume from the farmers—to farmers and from Britain to other EEC countries, all of which, except for Italy and Ireland, are wealthier than ourselves. They say, too, that they think the official estimate of the budgetary cost is too low—I shall come to that shortly—and that it ignores the stimulus to extra output which will have to be exported at a loss and the consequent weakening of world market prices. They conclude by saying that the issue of reform of the common agricultural policy has again been shirked. I think most people would probably agree with that last point. We have also been informed that the consumers are dissatisfied with the conclusions.
Having said that, noble Lords will see that in the report it was recommended that proper account should be taken of the need for farmers to meet, this time, with some degree of compensation for their loss of net profit over the years. So it was with that in mind that the committee made its report. The result has gone further than we either recommended or expected in order to meet the needs of the farmers.
Turning to the budgetary implications, unless there is expansion of common agricultural policy expenditure, kept far below average during the 1970s and below the rate of increase in "own resources", the latter will be rapidly exhausted and all other Community expenditure squeezed. The Commission's "Reflections"—and its "Reflections" is the second paper which we are considering—largely address themselves to this fact and propose wide extension of the principle of co-responsibility and, most of all, as we describe it in the report, draconian action on milk.
The Commission itself asserted vigorously that the package it proposed in its price proposals—the other paper which we are considering—was the most which could be tolerated within budgetary constraints. Therefore an explanation is required—I would not expect my noble friend the Minister of State to provide it at this stage—from the Commission for its apparent volte face. The Commission's original proposals for common agricultural policy prices and related measures for 1981–82 were estimated to cost the budget in a full year 825 million European currency units, net, or 490 million European currency units, net, after allowing for extra income of 335 million European currency units from co-responsibility levies, et cetera. The table in paragraph 34 of our report refers to this.
724
The Commission said that this was all that could be accepted while keeping the growth of the common agricultural policy cost within the rate of growth of own resources. My right honourable friend's statement in another place suggests that the package agreed by the Council means a considerably increased net claim on the budget, though it is not quite clear how much by. I take it, from a press report, that it is of the order of 1,096 million European currency units, which would be of the order of one-third more than the Commission's original proposals, which the Commission said went as far as it was possible to go. It is not yet clear what the overall effect on the Community's budget will be—what extra income, if any, will accrue to "own resources", given the failure of the Council to implement its undertaking to implement a super-levy for milk. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to comment on that. It seems to me that not implementing the super-levy is one of the more important actions that the Commission has failed to take, having been so strong about it earlier on.
I do not want to bore your Lordships by going on with this analysis of the situation. I should like to turn briefly to the "Reflections", a rather whimsical title for what the Commission thinks ought to happen to the common agricultural policy in the future. The committee all agreed that it was a most disappointing document: disappointing at this time when most people are agreed that some revision of the mechanics of the common agricultural policy must come about in order to make sure that it retains some sort of solvency; disappointing in that it made so few really coherent proposals; disappointing in that, having made such proposals as it did, the Commission then made no effort to work towards implementing them, if not implementing them fully, in its own price proposals for this year. So I believe that we really must insist that the Commission goes back to the drawing board and produces something much more coherent if it is to save the common agricultural policy from being financially overwhelmed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to say a word?
Lord Mottistone: I have nearly finished. I was about to conclude, but I have been interrupted by my noble friend. May I finish by saying—it is no good. I am sorry. I shall have to conclude my speech. I do not want to go on unnecessarily. Perhaps I shall have an opportunity in closing the debate to say what I was going to finish with. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Commission's reflections on the Common Agricultural Policy (12271/80) and on the proposals for fixing agricultural prices 1981–82 (5091/81) (19th Report, H.L. 126).—(Lord Mottistone.)
6.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for introducing this debate today and for giving the House the opportunity to debate the

725
report which the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House has produced on the very important matter of the common agricultural policy. I think he introduced it in a highly responsible and very effective way.
It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, back in his place. He is normally chairman of the committee but he was obliged to give over his responsibilities to my noble friend. He, as always, has a great welcome here.
May I also thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the kind remarks of appreciation which he made of my right honourable friend the Minister? Although we had the opportunity about two weeks ago of a short debate on agriculture, the committee had not by then reported. Therefore it is quite correct to have a debate today which is confined to the common agricultural policy and its structures.
Although the report has only recently been produced, it has of course been slightly overtaken by events because the Council of Ministers agreed last week on the terms of the price fixing, which my noble friend admitted came as some surprise to him and I do not think he was necessarily alone in that. I thought that it might be helpful if I were to endeavour at the outset to explain to your Lordships what have been the terms of the prices which have been agreed and how they relate to the recommendations which the committee made in their report, because apart from anything else, your Lordships were not sitting when the Statement was made in another place and therefore your Lordships did not have the advantage of being able to hear at first hand what has been achieved.
In any event, in a number of instances the results of the price fixing have fallen remarkably in accord with the wishes of your Lordships' committee. Of course, not in all cases, and my noble friend has been able to point to some where they have not been met, but on the whole I think it is remarkable how closely they have followed the wishes of your Lordships' committee. So, if it is for the convenience of your Lordships, I should like at the end of the debate to answer any questions which your Lordships may feel you would like specifically to address to me during the course of the debate in regard to other matters relating to the common agricultural policy.
The Select Committee said in their report that they considered the timetable for the price fixing to be most unsatisfactory this year, in that the Commission's proposals were not presented very early. I can well understand those views. The proposals are important and we all wish to have time to examine them, but I think one has to recognise the fact which my noble friend recognised, that with a new Commission this year and with the much regretted death of Mr. Gundelach, who had given so much of his life to work for the Commission, there were special reasons for the delay in the publication of the proposals. On the other hand, the final agreement with the Council of Ministers has been achieved in almost record time—certainly a record for the last eight years. So often the negotiations about the price fixing go on well into the middle of the year that I think it is a cause for great rejoicing that at least this year not only were the discussions completed speedily but they yielded decisions which
726
were particularly good from this country's point of view.
Before the price fixing my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture outlined in a debate in another place the objectives which the British Government had in the negotiations which were about to take place. In fact, every single objective which my right honourable friend outlined in that speech was achieved in the negotiations and I think that is a remarkable achievement.
There were basically three areas in which we were endeavouring to improve the position. First, in terms of the impact upon the budget and the methods of restraining the sharp rises which have taken place over the last few years in the cost of the common agricultural policy, which has been of considerable concern to many people. Secondly, with regard to the interests of the consumers; and thirdly, with regard to the interests of our producers and farmers.
In terms of the budget, the effect of the final agreement is one which I feel sure your Lordships will be able to approve. In the year before this Government came into office the common agricultural policy was taking up 80 per cent. of the total budget of the European Community. In 1979 it took up 75 per cent. In the last two years we have been able to reduce the proportion of the European budget which is devoted to the common agricultural policy to less than 70 per cent. In the last three years of the previous Administration the cost of the common agricultural policy increased by an annual average of over 20 per cent. As a result of the price fixing, both last year and this year, the average increase in overall costs of the common agricultural policy will be of the order of 11 per cent. Therefore, if we look at it in terms of the rate of growth of expenditure over the last two years, it has been halved. I think that is a very significant step forward.
In the areas most concerned—those of surpluses—important agreements were reached at this price fixing. The biggest surplus of all, to which my noble friend quite rightly drew your Lordships' attention, is milk, and my right honourable friend obtained agreement by all the Council of Ministers that the Community budget provisions for the milk section for 1981 will be held at 10 per cent. below that which they were in 1980. It is intended that the budget for expenditure in the milk section will be totally adhered to and if, for any reason such as an increase in production, the budget limitations are threatened, the Council of Ministers will take action in order to avoid further inroads into the budget. In this important sector, therefore, there has been a real improvement in budget terms in 1981.
One of the fastest rising areas of common agricultural expenditure was the fruit and vegetable sectors, mainly applying to production in the Mediterranean areas of the Community. I am glad to say that in this sector, again, the Council of Ministers agreed to a limitation on overall costs and there will probably be a saving of something in the order of £40 million as a result of the agreements which have been reached.
In the area of cereals the Council of Ministers agreed that co-responsibility measures should be applied in the marketing year 1982–83 and this will probably show a further saving of £40 million. In the area of

727
beef production, intervention changes will show savings of £38 million.
In total, therefore, in the four main areas of potential or current surplus production—which are milk, cereals, fruit and vegetables, and beef—very important progress has been made. So far as the British Government's unadjusted contribution to the European budget is concerned, our initial estimates are that a combination of the changes which took place, both in the European monetary system exchange rates and in the price fixing, will mean that there is a slight reduction in the British contribution.
It is often said—and frequently erroneously—that the common agricultural policy works against the interests of the consumers, and I regret that some hasty statements have given the public a very false impression of the effect which this review will have on consumers. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that they were dissatisfied, but the total effect on consumers of this year's price fixing will be an addition of less than one quarter of one per cent. on the retail price index and it will only be of the order of 1 per cent. on the food price index in a full year. If I might be permitted to inject a small political observation, it would be that a 1 per cent. increase in the food price index in a full year as a result of this price fixing is in contrast to the increase in food prices of 1 per cent. per fortnight which took place during the period of the previous Administration.
The reason for some of the false figures and facts which were given on the day when the price fixing took place was, I think, largely a lack of understanding of what had been achieved. Many newspapers reported that beef would go up by 5p per pound as a result of the price fixing. That might have been so had we not succeeded in retaining the beef premium scheme, which is another point which the committee wanted. In fact, this has been retained and so the consumers will be insulated from the much needed higher prices for producers.
Reports were made that bacon would go up by 7p per pound. In reality, because there is no intervention in the bacon market, the increase in pigment prices which were agreed will primarily relate to imports from third countries, which of course are only a minor part of the total bacon market. The only adverse effect on bacon prices is likely to be that which arises from the higher cereal feed costs together with a small change in MCAs. Even these in a full year are unlikely to amount to more than 2p per 1b. of bacon. Many newspapers reported that there would be an extra 1p on bread. In reality the increases in cereal prices will account for no more than ½p on a loaf when the full effects of the prices have worked through. In terms of areas such as butter and cheese, although the new arrangements will result in higher intervention prices, when the effects are fully worked through, the reality is that these markets are highly competitive, with Denmark, Ireland and other continental producers and the British producers all fighting for a bigger share of the United Kingdom market, and it is quite likely that that competition will have a restraining effect upon butter and cheese prices. Added to this my right honourable friend obtained agreement on a continuing inflow of New Zealand butter
728
on to the British market, and that is not without its importance.
As a result of these negotiations, therefore, as far as the consumer is concerned, Britain now enjoys a butter subsidy which is unique to the British consumer. It enjoys a beef premium which is funded 25 per cent. from the European Community, and it enjoys a lamb premium scheme which is funded 100 per cent. from the European Community, both of which give the housewife the advantage of low market prices. These three schemes, the butter, the beef and the lamb, together are worth £300 million, and they will give a benefit to the British housewife which is not available in any other European country.
As far as our farmers are concerned, they have obtained at an early date the increases which they greatly required. Last year, in real terms, farm incomes dropped by 24 per cent. and your Lordships quite rightly expressed concern at that fact two weeks ago. There is no doubt at all that there was need for a substantial increase, and we should not underestimate the role which British farmers have made in the battle against inflation. Over the three years of price fixing for which this Government have been responsible the average increase in common prices will have been only around 5 per cent. This is a very considerable degree of price restraint. The increase of between 9 and 9½ per cent. this year is an increase which I think is very well balanced as far as British agriculture is concerned, although I know that your Lordships' committee looked for an increase of about 1 per cent. less. The final result, though, is not what I would have described, as my noble friend did, as bad news. I would have described it as much in accord with what your Lordships hoped would happen and much in accord with what the Commission proposed, and it is considerably less than some of the demands which others made.
As far as the cereals are concerned, where we had three record harvests and where the financial problems are not as great as those of livestock, we achieved an actual reduction in the Commission's proposals for cereal target price increases. The increases affecting the livestock sector are vital if we are to retain our herds and our flocks in this country.
The total benefits to United Kingdom agriculture in terms of their receipts will be about an additional £325 million. When this is combined with a drop of 5 per cent. in minimum lending rate from its peak and with the announcements which have already been made for improved hill farm subsidies, the increase which has been taking place in the liquid price of milk, these will combine together to be of considerable assistance to British agriculture in meeting, the very substantial increases which have taken place in their costs. Farm wages have substantially increased over the past two years. So has the cost of fuel and energy, which in turn has substantially increased the costs of fertiliser. If we are going to retain the remarkable record of investment and productivity in British agriculture it is important that these costs at least in part are met.
Perhaps one of the most important achievements in this price fixing, in spite of considerable pressure from our Community partners, was that we succeeded in resisting any revaluation of the green pound. That is

729
another point which your Lordships' committee made and which was met. For many years British agriculture was heavily penalised by having a constant tariff against its exports of between 25 per cent. and 45 per cent. The foreign exporter into Britain had an advantage of between 25 per cent. and 45 per cent. As a result of the earlier three green pound devaluations and a resistance in this year's price fixing to revaluation of the green pound, we are now enjoying positive MCAs, and it is now British agriculture which has the advantage in the European market. For example, when we came into office the Dutch or the Dane, who exported bacon to Britain, was receiving a subsidy of £127 per tonne on exports of bacon. Now the foreign competitor has to pay a levy of £127 per tonne and it is the British producer who has the benefit. This will enable us to improve our share of the bacon market and our share of the dairy products market in the United Kingdom. It will also enable us to embark upon a successful export campaign, which must be not only good for British agriculture but good for the British economy as a whole.
My Lords, I think I can say this, and I can do so with a certain degree of modesty as I was not a party to it. This price fixing has been a remarkable achievement which will help both in the short term and in the long term in the United Kingdom and the European Community. If one can summarise it, I will say this. In budgetary terms we have put considerable restraints upon the common agricultural policy. The British unadjusted contribution is expected to be slightly reduced. The proportion of the European budget which goes to the common agricultural policy has been substantially reduced compared with three years ago. In terms of the consumer, £300 million will benefit the British housewife and there will be only a minor effect upon food prices over the course of the entire year. In terms of British agriculture, a much needed and important injection of cash has been given in order to enable farmers to continue farming successfully, and the green pound has not been revalued. It will enable the industry to continue to make a major contribution to our essential food supplies and to the economy in general.
My Lords, I thought it would be helfpul to your Lordships if I were to give the position in regard to the price fixing at the outset of the debate. I will be entirely happy to make any further observations later on, at the end of the debate, in regard to "reflections", documents or any other points, if that should be your Lordships' wish.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must thank the Minister for his speech and for the valuable information and comments he has given us. At this point I would like to apologise to him and to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave to catch the 8.40 p.m. shuttle to Edinburgh immediately after speaking. I intend no discourtesy. The time taken to consider the Scottish Matrimonial Homes Bill rather upset my calculations. I want to speak on this Motion because, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I was a member of the sub-committee. I echo his remarks, his gratitude to those who gave evidence to us and to our clerk and specialist advisers.
730
I would first of all declare an interest, since I am a farmer, which is fairly well known, and I have a slight prejudice towards farmers. I would start with comment on the price review. The first thing to say is that this is not going to make anyone in farming rich. It will enable them just to keep up—if we have a good yield year—with the much reduced income that farming enjoyed, or failed to enjoy, last year.
That does not mean that a number of farmers do not do quite well. It is a fact that last year, for example, the big cereal growers, the monoculture men in the South, had an excellent year. But those men have enormous capital investments, very high inputs and a degree of skill which has been developed since the war in monoculture, which has done an enormous amount of good for this country in the saving of imports and the increasing of food supplies. But on the whole, agriculture from John O'Groats to Devon is not in a good way. A whole number of other industries are also not in a good way, but it is noticeable that the farmers of this country have accepted—and they are used to bargaining—the fact that they are getting 9.5 per cent. instead of what the international farmers' organisation asked for, which was 15 per cent. They have accepted that with very good grace and they realise that they must play their part in the battle against inflation as, indeed, they have done and are doing at this moment.
I am very glad that the Minister put the figures right with regard to the rise in the price of food. The facts are that this objective of the common agricultural policy has been fulfilled. The CAP has been enormously successful in producing adequate supplies of food in Europe for the European consumer, and enormously successful in giving a continuity of supply and a guarantee of supply. The consumers have had that food at a price which is reasonable for the incomes that they are earning, and certainly the proportion of income paid for food has dropped. I do not say that they do not have a case for watching the rise—of course they have—but I think that we must accept that the CAP has had a very successful run since the foundation of the Community in producing food, in increasing the supply of food for the citizens of Europe and in guaranteeing them against a world market which, as we have seen with sugar this year and with cereals in 1973–74, can fluctuate to a very great degree.
It is also necessary to know that the CAP does not control the activities of the Cake and Biscuit Alliance and the retailers and distributors of this country The facts are that of the end price for food to the consumer only 30 per cent. goes to the farmer and 70 per cent. goes to the chain of processors, distributors and so on. I do not say that they do not deserve it, but the farmer is not to blame for the whole of the rise in the price of food.
Having said that, I think that the committee were absolutely right in their view that we need to have a long-term plan by which processors and farmers can plan. I do not think it matters when the actual price review takes place because, in fact, most of the grain is sown later nowadays—it is winter corn—and of course the timing of the price review does not matter to the farmer's plan. The farmer must have a longer-term plan than from year to year. He has to know that milk is not to be a favoured commodity and that

731
over a period of years the price will not rise and will, indeed, fall in real terms.
What we are failing to do in the CAP is to control the surpluses. I greatly applaud the Minister's efforts and I admired his tremendous grasp of his subject and the way in which he tackled his fellow agricultural Ministers on the Council of Ministers. However, I rather disagree with my temporary chairman Lord Mottistone about the Commission being wrong. The Commission tries but it is the Council of Ministers which decides. Unless we do something about milk, the whole business will break down; and it will break down, of course, because of the fact that there will not be the money to continue to produce enormous surpluses. It will break down also because the public will become absolutely fed up with seeing the surpluses continually being produced and being exported to countries of which they do not approve, as happens at present.
So what the Minister must keep emphasising and what we must keep rubbing in to our continental partners is that they will kill the goose—and I am talking particularly of France—if they carry on in this way. In France they have a 10 per cent. rise and then they have a devaluation. France is one of the countries which will have an actual rise in price. It is one of the countries from which the danger of the over-supply of milk is the greatest.
I think that we must continue to press for a levy—what is known as the super-levy—on milk which goes directly on the area or country which produces the surplus instead of, as at present, penalising the whole of the producers, including the efficient producers in Britain (where we do not have a surplus of milk and milk products) who is penalised unfairly by the present levy and its rise. It was very interesting to hear the Minister say that the Council have decided that if there is a surplus they will do something about it. I do not know what they will do. The only thing that they can do, as far as I can see, is to apply the super-levy if they find during this year that the situation is getting out of hand.
I do not wish to say much more because other members of the committee wish to speak. I am very glad that the Minister has praised the settlement and has put it in proper perspective. I think that we must say to the country that the CAP has worked in this country's interests: it has produced a lot of food and reduced the international price of food, with which the CAP is often compared. But unless our continental partners realise that they must control surpluses, the whole thing will break down.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like to begin by making three introductory remarks. First, I should like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the way in which he has introduced his report and the way in which I am told—and unfortunately I was not here, so it is only secondhand evidence—he took the chair during the meetings of Sub-Committee D. Secondly, I should like to join in the tribute he paid to Finn Gundelach who was a very fine man and a very fine commissioner. He will certainly be missed and his influence will for a long time be felt. Thirdly, I should like to make it clear
732
that, although I am speaking from the Benches or (shall I say?) the Bench of the Social Democrats, I am not enunciating party policy, because that has not yet been formulated. My comments are purely my own, although I would hope that they will be fairly close to what eventually will become the party's agricultural policy, modified perhaps by some of the views of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
I think that perhaps it would be useful if I were to remind your Lordships of what is going on in the world at large and not simply in this country or, indeed, in Europe. Just before this debate took place I was glancing through the Financial Times and I saw three headlines which caught my attention. One of those headlines was,
"World Cereal Harvest Warning from the FAO in Rome",
that the shortage of cereals throughout the world is becoming critical. The second headline was:
"Poor nations seek food and food aid contracts",
and was drawing attention to the appalling situation with regard to world hunger, famine and malnutrition that exists in many parts of the world today. The third was:
"Eastern bloc forced to revise farm output targets";
and it went on to tell us that the Soviet Union is now proposing to give a 50 per cent. bonus to all those farms which this year sell more than they did last year. So desperate are they for food that they are resorting to the well-known capitalist forms of financial incentive. Therefore, we should not think solely of butter mountains, wine lakes and all the rest, because although we have them, to a lesser extent than we had in the past, in the world as a whole the picture is very different indeed.
There is a further point that I should like to make clear at the outset of my remarks. It is that, in my view, the common agricultural policy should concern itself solely with the economic aspects of agriculture, with the actual production of food and other agricultural products; and that the very real social and environmental problems which are closely tied up with agriculture should be dealt with by other mechanisms through the Regional Fund and through various other ways open to both the Community and individual countries. However, if we try to twist the common agricultural policy into fulfilling not only the needs of food production, looking at not only the importance of ensuring for those who produce the food a reasonable standard of living, but also in preventing the creation of rural slums, in providing work for those who otherwise would be out of work in rural areas, in preserving the environment and the beauties of it, then the task is indeed impossible.
Having said that, let me turn to the real problems with which the committee was faced, with which the Commission and the Council of Ministers are faced, and indeed with which all those who are interested in the common agricultural policy have to concern themselves. For many years, we have realised that too much food is being produced within the Community for the needs of the Community, and the cost of that food is too high. It is too high not only from the point of view of the actual consumers within the Community, but it is far too high in world terms. Therefore, in spite of the crying need for food in other

733
parts of the world, the money simply is not there to make it available to those people who need it.
It has been held until the present time—and is still held by many but I am glad to say by a diminishing number of people—that the correct way to deal with this is simply by invoking the price mechanism: too much food is being produced, so lower the price and less food will be produced. I do not want to go into the arguments about that. I have repeated them to your Lordships and particularly to my colleagues on the sub-committee, probably from their point of view ad nauseam. All I would say is that I, personally, strongly disagree with this view and I believe that the facts bear me out; that in real terms the price of agricultural products has been diminishing but the total amount of food that is produced has been increasing. What is more, if the price mechanism were to work eventually—and, of course, in the long-run it undoubtedly would—it could only work with the results of increasing rural poverty, which is something that none of us wants and against which the Treaty of Rome specifically turns it face; a lack of investment in agriculture, a decline in research in agriculture and eventually a decline in efficiency in agriculture, for which in the long-run the consumer has to pay.
Therefore, although I do not turn my back 100 per cent. on the price mechanism, I think that it should be invoked with the greatest degree of caution. Here I must say that I disagree with one of the comments that is made in this report, on page 10. But for all that, I am in entire agreement with those who say, as we all say, that the cost of the common agricultural policy must be contained, and that it cannot go on escalating.
The noble Earl has pointed out that in a very modest way progress has been made in containing the total cost, and I congratulate him and his right honourable friend on their success in doing that, and I do so ungrudgingly. But I do not believe that under the present system it will be possible to contain the cost of the common agricultural policy within the limits within which we all think it should be contained. Here I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he spoke about a long-term policy.
Farming is a long-term occupation. Plans have to be laid for many years in advance for whole systems of agriculture; for rotations, for balance between crops and livestock, for different forms of livestock. They all have to be planned and cannot be changed from year to year. One can direct agriculture into the proper channels only if one has a long-term plan. Therefore, I repeat what I have said on many occasions, and which I am very glad to say this report also supports, that, as a first step in reforming the common agricultural policy, the Commission should produce a common food policy—one stretching ahead for five years on a rolling basis and setting out in pretty specific terms the total amount of food which it considers is required from the producers within the Community; and undertaking to buy the total amount of that food at prices which will reflect a reasonable return on capital, a reasonable return on skills and a reasonable standard of living.
I think that that can be done without any of this
734
year-by-year haggling within the Commission and within the Council of Ministers. It can be done on a formula, if it is so wished, and that would be a great step forward. However, you cannot say to a farmer that he is to produce so much and no more. For one thing, he will not pay attention to it; for another thing, it is, in my view, an undue interference with his liberty; and, for a third thing—possibly the most important—you cannot control the climate. There will be occasions when there will be very large surpluses, and there will be many occasions when there will be modest surpluses. Let the farmers grow their surpluses if they wish, but do not let them come to the Commission and say, "Now you must buy these surpluses from us at these exaggerated prices". Let them be sold on the world market at whatever price they can receive. That is the basic theory that, in my view, should underlie the common agricultural policy; that fair prices should be paid for the quantity needed and the rest takes its chance on world markets.
Perhaps I may make one small digression here, as we are talking about fair prices. In his speech, the noble Earl mentioned the target prices as if they were—and I am sure that he did not mean to give this impression—the prices which farmers, in fact, receive. I have in front of me a list of the target prices as regards the United Kingdom, and the intervention prices; the intervention price being, as your Lordships well know, the price at which, in theory, farmers are able to sell if they cannot sell in any other way. In fact, it is frequently the case that for technical reasons farmers have to accept a lower price than the intervention price. It has to be of a certain quality, and it has to be in fairly large quantities which only the largest farmers can meet. We shall let that pass, but, whereas the target price for wheat is £142, the intervention price—the price which is important—is only £102, which is very little more than it was last year. In fact, it is a 6 per cent. increase rather than the 7·7 per cent. on the intervention price. That is a minor interpolation, but it puts the matter in rather better perspective.
Let me come back to the food plan and the total quantities. How can this be done? It is an enormously complex problem, as your Lordships know, and it certainly would not be right to attempt to go into it in any detail here. At one time people used to talk of quotas. "Quotas" has now become a dirty word and must never be used. At one time we used to talk in this country of standard quantitites—a very valuable concept which was adopted by Governments of both complexions in the old days, as my noble friend Lord Peart well knows.
The fashionable word now is "quantum". I do not mind what it is called, but it brings forward the concept that the total amount produced for which the guaranteed price is going to be paid should be specified. This can be enforced in a variety of different ways. In sugar beet, it already exists. There are quotas for each factory. That could be extended to the big dairy combines and the co-operative dairies. It could be extended to the wine co-operatives in Southern France and in Italy if it were thought desirable. It can be done.
It could be dealt with simply by withholding some of the price paid for whatever the commodity might

735
be, and at the end of the year, when the total amount had been worked out, if it was in excess of the quantum there would be a pro rata reduction in the amount paid out to the farmers. Or it could be done, as the Community have suggested and put into practice, by the co-responsibility levy. Here again, while I do not think it is the ideal way of doing it, I strongly support any move in this direction, and the co-responsibility levy, particularly with the super-levy, is a valuable move in this direction.
All I would say is that, if such a thing is introduced, I believe that it should be pro rata with the amount by which the quantum has been exceeded, so that if it is exceeded by only 2 per cent. there is a small amount of co-responsibility levy, whereas if it is exceeded by 25 per cent. it will be a very substantial amount. I am quite certain that the clever brains within the Ministry of Agriculture in this country, in the Commission in Brussels and in other places, could between them work out a perfectly feasible means of achieving these ends once the principle had been accepted.
There is only one further point that I want to make. That is that we in this country—and it applies particularly to this country rather than to the other countries of the Community, which have never been used to it—must realise that the days of cheap food are over; that there is a growing world food shortage; that our position as virtually the sole importer of food has now disappeared; and that as a long-term insurance we must look increasingly to our own farms and our own fields for our own food, and must be prepared to pay a fair price for that food.
The bargain basement shopping around has disappeared. It rears its head every now and again but it is not there in perpetuity, as it appeared to be in those far-off days between the wars, and indeed before the First World War. That is a lesson which the British consumer must learn and must accept. He is prepared to accept it when he has to pay more for his postage stamps, telephone calls, cigarettes, glass of beer, his underground ticket or his rent, but when it comes to what he thinks is 1p on the price of bread—and in fact, as the noble Earl has told us, it is more likely to be ½p on the price of bread—hands go up in horror and he says, "This must never be".
There is no reason at all why the consumers of this country should be insulated entirely from the effects of inflation when it comes to food but submit to them—though possibly with a bad grace—when it comes to everything else. I go along with the noble Earl when he says—I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also said this—that British farmers over the years have in fact, by taking a lower profit margin and, above all, by increasing their efficiency, contributed more to the fight against inflation than has any other sector of the community.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, as an outsider to this sub-committee I was glad to respond to an invitation from the chairman to take part. I am a member of the Select Committee, and on one or two occasions attended the deliberations of this sub-committee on
736
this report. I should like to make one or two general points and then deal with one specific matter that has been the concern of the sub-committee. The general point is first to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee on the work they have done here, and to congratulate my right honourable friend the Minister for the agreement he has secured at the Council of Ministers.
In addition to that, and perhaps even more welcome in the long run, there was the evidence we heard from him to the effect that he fully intends, when the presidency falls to the United Kingdom in the latter part of the year, to use that opportunity to start in earnest on those long-term, fundamental reforms to the CAP which everybody regards as so necessary. We cannot proceed much longer—and several speakers have said this—without coming to terms with the fundamental faults which exist in the administration of the policy at the moment.
The more specific point I should like to deal with is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred at the beginning of his speech; namely, the attitude expressed by the sub-committee in paragraphs 65 and 66 of their report at page xxiv. This is a theme which they begin at paragraph 14 on page ix. I should like to hear from my noble friend when he speaks at the end of this debate what Her Majesty's Government's attitudes are to these particular conclusions.
The point to which the sub-committee turned their attention in paragraph 14, and encapsulate in their conclusions at paragraphs 65 and 66, is this. They wish to see the common agricultural policy support for the less viable farms in the less favoured areas greatly reduced and certainly curtailed where the produce of such farms is already in surplus, where, for instance, they are producing milk. Where a farm's produce is contributing to a surplus, the subcommittee say that they would like to see such farms—and our hill farms, of course, included—supported by national aids; that is, by United Kingdom subsidies, by United Kingdom grants.
The present EEC rules for the less favoured areas provide for a farm in this country and any other country in the less favoured areas to be supported in their nonagricultural activities, such as farm tourism enterprises, and to be encouraged to take up these enterprises whenever options are available to them in such areas. This rule recognises the contribution such farms and such farm enterprises make to the general rural economy.
When we were dealing recently with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I moved an amendment on the second day of the Report stage (col. 480 of Hansard for 12th March), which was supported by the district councils, county councils and tourist boards, for United Kingdom legislation also to reflect the philosophy which is already in the EEC Less Favoured Areas Directive. The House accepted that, but my noble friend speaking for the Government was hesitant, if not actually resistant, to it. Now our Select Committee is making the same point and I should be glad to know from my noble friend what the Government's present attitude to it, as expressed in the report, is.
The need for us to know the Government's attitude arises from the fact that up till now farmers have looked almost exclusively to MAFF and ADAS, their

737
advisers, for guidance and support and in recent years, since we have been in Europe, to the common agricultural policy as the source of grants, subsidies and aids which have backed up that support. The implications of what our Select Committee is now saying at paragraphs 65 and 66 are that when a farmer in a less favoured area—a hill farmer in United Kingdom phraseology—is marketing a produce that is in surplus, his support (and that financial support may amount to more than half his income) will cease to become a matter exclusively for MAFF and the CAP and become instead a matter, to some extent at least, for the local authorities and the United Kingdom Treasury.
If the district and county councils, who certainly share a responsibility for the rural economy as a whole but not for agricultural support in particular, are to take up with MAFF this responsibility for administering the support for hill farmers whose product is in surplus, then we need to have ample notice of that change of policy, for it would indeed be a change of policy. But my expectation and hope—and I believe the best hope for hill farmers—would lie, rather, in the direction of the amendment I moved on Report of the Countryside Bill to which I alluded; namely, that such hill farmers should continue to be able to look primarily to MAFF for guidance and support, not only for their enterprises concerned with the production of food but for whatever other enterprises they embark upon on their farms, whether it be forestry, tourism, land management, recreation facilities or whatever, even if those activities are not exclusively in food production.
We should be able, in my view, to rely on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to secure for such farmers an appropriate income, and appropriate support for their income, whether from the United Kingdom or from the EEC, whether wholly from agriculture or whether from any other farm enterprises. Unless we make some sort of move in that direction, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will turn out to be right. We cannot continue to use the CAP alone for every sort of social and other regional economic purpose. We must find other sources of support for certain farms in certain areas. Nevertheless, I believe it would be best if the Ministry of Agriculture remained the main agency for the administration of those funds, and that is the point on which I should be glad to hear from my noble friend when he replies to the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House for having to leave before the end of the debate, and I apologise especially to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. My difficulty arises because I was misinformed about the enthusiasm that was likely to be generated by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill.
We are all, I am sure, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for giving us this opportunity to talk about what is the most important aspect of the whole economic policy of the Common Market. It is full of unresolved difficulties which are getting worse as time progresses and, looking at it in the broadest way, one cannot help but feel gloomy about the out-
738
look, both because of those unresolved problems and from the narrow point of view that for somebody like me who is a strong supporter of our membership of the Common Market, it is extremely difficult to defend the way in which the CAP is developing.
At the outset I wish to pay a strong tribute to the Select Committee for producing this report, particularly having regard to the time difficulties. It is an admirable document, dealing of course primarily with agricultural matters but touching on some wider matters in a clear and succinct way, and anybody who wants to be informed both on the narrower and wider aspects would be greatly helped by reading the report—and I can say that clearly because I am not a member of the committee.
I wish tonight to make only a few general remarks on subjects some of which have been covered already. As for the difficulties, the first on which I wish to comment, looking at it from the outside, is that the CAP takes the lion's share of the Community budget. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say he thought that that share was coming down. I wish I could share his optimism about the outcome of this year's review, which the report describes as taking a high risk strategy—by which I think they mean that the forecasts are not likely to come out nearly as well as has been estimated—but it is a great weakness of the Community that so much of the money it gets has to go on the CAP.
On Monday, your Lordships will be debating another report from a committee to which I belong, and that will be about the Regional Fund of the Community. The Regional Fund was supposed to help towards convergence—that is, towards making the different member states approach one another in their national wealth—and we had a lot of evidence on the subject, into which I shall not go now in view of Monday's debate. However, I would comment in this context that we were always running up against the difficulty that the amounts available for the Regional Fund were so small, that they had no impact at all on the problem, and, meanwhile, the broad effect of the CAP as it operates at present is to favour the richer rather than the poorer regions.
There is also the question of the direct United Kingdom interest, which came so much to the fore when the right honourable lady the Prime Minister was struggling to do something about the unfairness of the share paid by the United Kingdom. That, again, is a result mostly produced by the CAP. The report says that it is unlikely that any restructuring of the CAP is likely to have much effect on that problem. The Council of Ministers has undertaken to find a permanent solution to it when the present temporary solution runs out in 1982; and I do not think that much is happening in that direction at present.
The basic problem, which has already been mentioned (especially by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie) is that of surpluses—the continuance of the surpluses, the fact that dealing with them takes up so much of the Community's funds. The constant load of surpluses around our necks is what makes it so hard for nonagricultural people to defend this large aspect of the Common Market. The surpluses arise because of the necessity to keep the poorer and less efficient farmers, especially in France and Germany, somewhere near to

739
the standard of living enjoyed in other places; though, as the report says, that has been given up as a primary objective.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned that part of the report which struck me very much. It made the suggestion, which has been made several times before in one context or another, that the CAP ought to be confined to the main matters, and it should not be influenced by the objective of dealing with social and regional problems. I was glad to see that the Committee endorsed the suggestion—though I fear that at the moment it is a hopeless wish—that the countries which have special problems of this kind, because they cannot or will not face the necessary adjustments, should take the responsibility for them and that that responsibility should be exercised in ways which do not add to the surpluses. I consider that that was a very good and well argued part of the report.
I feel that I must leave the question of the individual prices to other noble Lords who know much more about it than I do. The main factor in coping with the surpluses is the extension of the co-responsibility principle, which I gather has been recommended because nobody thinks that the Council of Ministers will accept the suggestion of actually lowering the intervention prices. So I suppose that the report supports that as the best thing obtainable, but it made serious criticism of the way in which that is to operate, and I must say that when one reads the report one does not at the moment see signs of much progress in dealing with the surpluses.
I want to make only one other point. The report recommends that the action which was actually taken on the green pound should be supported, and I gather that, despite what the noble Earl said, British farmers are not getting a very big deal out of this and that they would have been even worse off if the recommendations about the green pound had been accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke at some length about food problems, and in this connection we ought to remind ourselves that no action on the green pound puts the consumers here in a worse position than if the action had been adopted. I have often felt that there is much in the suggestion that the Community, through the CAP, does not pay enough attention to the interests of consumers and that a step in this direction would be to call it the common food and agricultural policy, rather than merely the common agricultural policy, so that at least there would be somebody to think about the interests of the consumer in the way that has been put to us so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, bearing in mind that he has to leave before the end of the debate, may I say that I wonder whether he is aware how grateful I am to him for joining in and giving us the benefit of his great expertise in the deliberations which are mainly associated with Sub-committee D?
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, that is most kind of the noble Lord.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the report that we are considering today, which owes so much to his chairmanship of Sub-committee D, which he took over owing to the regrettable absence through illness of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I also wish to express appreciation of the work of the specialist adviser and the clerk to the committee, who were working to a very tight timetable.
Every year when we have here evidence from the various interested parties, we hear largely the same arguments and we are faced by largely the same problems. In fact one has a very strong feeling of having been here before. The same criticisms are levelled at the policy year after year. The basic problems appear to be as follows. First, there are the farmers' rising costs of inputs, calculated (as has already been stated) in the case of the United Kingdom at 14 per cent. over last year, and the consequential drop in income, calculated at 24 per cent. The second problem is that of increased yields due to improving techniques of food production; and the third problem is that of static food consumption. Of particular importance, in view of the Community's milk surplus, is the falling consumption of butter. According to the latest national food survey, households in the United Kingdom are eating less butter. By the end of last year demand for margarine exceeded that for butter for the first time in almost 25 years. In view of that, it is good that the Minister of Agriculture, in his negotiations with his European counterparts, managed to retain the £65·7 million a year subsidy to encourage butter consumption in the United Kingdom.
I cannot help feeling that, when considering their price proposals, the Commission do not give enough consideration to the effect of higher prices on the pattern of consumption nor to the needs and interests of consumers generally. As has been stated so many times in our debates, the greatest weakness of the CAP is the open-ended nature of the guaranteed prices which have led to the surpluses. In the Commission's reflections it is proposed that producers should take some financial responsibility for the surpluses that they create in excess of an agreed quantity. This is not a measure to reduce surplus production but to save budget expenditure. As we state in paragraph 30 of the report—and I quote:
"In general, however, the Committee still feel that, despite the political difficulties, it would be better on a long-term basis to lower agricultural support prices as a means of controlling surpluses—both by reducing supply and increasing consumption—rather than introducing co-responsibility levies which do not have any consumption-increasing effects".
But, as we know, instead of reducing prices of products in surplus, the agricultural Ministers have agreed on farm price rises averaging about 9·5 per cent., against the Commission's original proposal that worked out at 7·8 per cent. One may well ask what has happened to the former, prudent price policy. In the case of the two main surplus commodities, this means, in effect, an increase of 9 per cent. for butter and skimmed milk powder. In the case of common wheat and barley, it means an increase of 6 per cent.
In further reference to the cereal sector, production over the last five years has been rising steadily. Com-

741
mon wheat production has risen from 34 million tonnes to 47 million tonnes, no doubt due to rapidly rising yields, as well as good harvests. Barley production has risen from 32 million tonnes to 40 million tonnes. Yet demand is falling, with Community intervention stocks of cereals of 6·5 million tonnes. Cereals are central to the pricing of agricultural products, affecting the costs of dairy and livestock producers as well as food processors. The Commission's proposed price support will neither stem production nor encourage consumption. Also, of course, it means increased expenditure on cereal export subsidies. It is the Commission's aim to encourage the greater use of Community-produced cereals by making third country grain less competitive. This was criticised by many witnesses, and to my mind rightly so. MAFF informed the Committee that
"our imports of hard wheat and maize from North America cannot be replaced by Community grain".
This tax will be particularly detrimental to Britain.
The package contains few of the Commission's original ideas for penalising the Community's farmers for over-production. As has already been said, for example, the super-levy on milk has disappeared. In the words of the Financial Times correspondent:
"EEC Farm Ministers seem still to favour an attack on agricultural surpluses—but not yet".
No comment on the farm price settlement would be complete without a reference to green currencies. No doubt the farming community are pleased that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Peter Walker, managed to resist demands for a revaluation of the green pound, which would have effectively reduced British prices. We sometimes forget that there are no genuine common prices to producers in the Community, because of the existence of the green currencies. What originally started as a temporary measure has become virtually permanent and can be manipulated to the advantage of individual members. For example, as a result of the recent change French dairy farmers will be getting an increase of over 12 per cent. and the Italians 15 per cent. in national currency terms.
The other distorting factor is the existence of national aids. These can have considerable effects on the competitive position of member states and on surplus production. In paragraph 17 of the report we say—and I quote:
"Member States continue to provide in the aggregate more funds for national aids to agriculture than the whole cost of the CAP".
Although there is little information publicly available on this subject, it has become known that the French are providing new national aids worth about £430 million. The committee believe that the Commission should monitor the actions of national Governments in this area and control those which may disturb the operation of the CAP.
It is regrettable, in my opinion, that this excellent report of Sub-Committee D, the conclusions of which were known to the Minister, has apparently had very little effect on the outcome of the agriculture Ministers' negotiations, with the result that the day of reckoning has been postponed. Structural surpluses are likely to remain and, with higher prices, may even increase. The effect on the Community budget is already causing
742
deep pessimism in Brussels. It would seem that the agriculture Ministers have apparently adopted the slogan,
"We will fight the good fight another day".
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as the seventh or eighth Member of your Lordships' House to take part in this extremely interesting debate, I shall be very short. But, first of all, I wanted very much to thank Lord Mottistone for the admirable way in which he has chaired the committee, and also the members of the committee for the interest which I think we all have in it and in the work that it does.
I want to congratulate the Minister, too, on getting an agreement in the first week in April in 1981. Of course, those of us who are farmers would like to have agreements in November or December the year before. But what happened in 1980 was disastrous, particularly to hill farmers, because we did not get the agreement about sheepmeat until, I think, October. By that time nearly all the sheep farmers with hill lambs had had to sell them because they could not keep them, as they had to look after the grass for the winter for the ewes, with the result that most of the hill sheep farmers missed the increase in price for sheep which came in November and December. This year, I hope, will be different. I hope that, because the Minister has successfully concluded an agreement, which may not be perfect but which is much better than the one we had in 1980, disasters like the one we had last year—and I am talking about sheep; I know about sheep; I am a sheep farmer—will be avoided. I would congratulate the Minister on having concluded the agreement so soon.
As a great many members of the committee have spoken, and as I agree with everything they have said, I shall be very brief. The problem of surpluses is one which most people have stressed. It is a very serious one. But it would be much more serious if it were a problem of shortages so as to lead to the same situation in the United Kingdom and the Northern countries as in the Southern part of the world, as was outlined in the Brandt Report. But I do not think it should be impossible to find ways of dealing with the surpluses which are occurring in the EEC. I think that the current agreement which the Minister of Agriculture has made about prices has been a little pessimistically dealt with by one or two people, and more particularly by those concerned with consumer organisations.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers here, and the Minister in his speech in the other place, said that one-quarter of 1 per cent. would be put on to retail prices as a result of these new arrangements; and that will be approximately 1 per cent. on the food prices in a whole year. I do not think that that is a very large increase for the consumer—and I stand here in this House wearing, as it were, two hats. I wear the hat of a farmer and also that of a consumer. In this week alone, I led a vote—against the Government on that occasion, I am afraid—because I was representing the views of the consumers. I think there should be—and I have thought this ever since I was chairman of a consumers' organisation—an interest between both sides. There must be fair play for both consumers and producers. I think that on this occasion fair play is really in

743
evidence. I, too, received a similar letter to that received by my noble friend Lord Mottistone from the Food Manufacturers' Federation. I read it with great care. I realise that they have to put their case for their manufacturing side; but I think that it is important for them to realise that they would not have anything to manufacture from the agricultural point of view if it were not for the fact that the farmers are growing as much food as they can in this country and that they are dependent upon the imports of such food as we cannot produce ourselves.
The agricultural industry is an industry which is fundamental to this country. If it is in a bad way—and in the last two years it has been in a bad way—it affects the whole economy of our nation. It also affects individuals as well. That is why I always stand up for the farming industry, although I am personally involved in it. I was going to mention the details of the arrangements that have been come to between our Minister and the Common Market, but as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has outlined them so carefully I will avoid doing that. They are in many ways very satisfactory. I do not share the pessimistic view of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who feels that much more could have been done. I think it is a step in the right direction.
I agree that the question of selling surpluses is one to which far more attention should be given. I should like to see a more careful study among the EEC people in Brussels into the ways in which we can encourage the buying of some of the food which the farmers are producing. I do not think that enough study is made of that. Too much is concentrated entirely on production and not enough on selling. I hope that after the very unfavourable view taken on the selling of surplus produce to Russia for very much lower prices than the European countries pay, that situation is entirely unacceptable. I would hope that someone in Brussels in the Commission would be concentrating on trying to think of ways of relating production and consumption in a much better way than before.
I thought that what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said about a food policy as opposed to a production policy is one that we could explore further. I am sure that that would be one way of dealing with this matter. It is better to have surpluses than not enough food. On that, we are on the right side. It will take some time to change the organisation of the CAP. It is not being done as rapidly and successfully as we would want, but how much better that we in Europe should be discussing the question of food surpluses or food distribution, all working if not exactly together at least in a Community interested in trying to do the same thing, than having what I think all of us in this House at the moment have known, which is two European wars. This is infinitely better and infinitely more helpful to the world, far more so than any of the appalling conditions that occurred in the past.
I do not take too depressing a view about the situation. There is a lot to do still, but at least we are talking together or trying to act together and that is a good thing. As your Lordships know—and I have said this many times—I am a practical hill farmer, a Scottish farmer. What I am saying today represents a lot of what the Scottish National Farmers' Union,
744
of which I am a member, would approve of. I would say one word to my noble friend Lord Sandford who is always interested in and talking about hill farmers. It is that what the hill farmers want is an economic price for what they produce and sell. It is that which the hill farmer wants. No doubt the hill farmer would or could enjoy Community services (in which he is very interested), but at the end of the day what makes the hill farmers and the development of the hills in England, Wales and Scotland is the price they get for the animal they are selling; and it is an animal which is not in surplus but which everybody wants and, what is more, one which we can export.
Do let us get our priorities right. What is going to help the hill farmer is whether or not he gets an economic return for his products. That is what I think, under the current arrangements which have been made by our Minister, will be very much better this year. It could not be worse. I am certain it will be very much better. I should like to say "Thank you" to the Minister for the fact that he has stuck up for the hill farmers, which is a fundamental part of our farming community. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, agrees with this because I have had many conversations with him. Knowing well Cumberland and the North of England, he knows what a vital part this plays in the agricultural world there.
I am an optimist. I have been through very bad times, then good times and also bad times again. But I never despair. I always think that round the corner something is going to be better. I think this agreement which has been made by the Minister and expounded brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be of enormous help to us in the future.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has already spoken from these Benches on the straightforward approach to the report as it stands. I wish to touch on another consideration, which is a certain amount that it does not say. Indeed, I want to talk—though not for very long—on the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have already referred. Some of this is included in the report in paragraphs 65 and 66 and the paragraphs to which the noble Lords referred. It concerns the social and regional objectives and also the environmental objectives. I speak, in a way, as an ex-member of Sub-Committee G straying into your Lordships' deliberations.
In particular, I want to say something about the reactions of the European Environmental Bureau over a period of time to the CAP and to the kind of remarks which are made in this report. The recent debates in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill mean that, certainly in this House, we now have considerable parliamentary awareness of the tensions between contemporary agriculture, wildlife and landscape conservation. The European dimension has not been so much explored and is slightly less well understood.
Environmental problems in rural areas of the Community are many and varied, ranging from the impact of intensive farming techniques on the lowlands of Northern Europe (for instance, pollution, landscape impoverishment, habitat destruction, nuisance from factory farms, et cetera) to ecological problems,

745
stemming from the abandonment of terraced agricultural land on the slopes of the Alps. The relationship between these problems and the mechanism of the CAP is complex; and, in many cases, it is difficult and perhaps rather artificial to separate national from Community legislation.
Nevertheless, the CAP provides the framework for national policy and has a dominant role in setting the pattern of incentives for individual farmers. Its emphasis on price policy has inhibited the development of more sensitive and flexible policy instruments at both Community and national levels. From an environmental point of view, excessive intensification has taken place in some areas, while there has been premature abandonment for under-utilisation of resources elsewhere. As the chief instrument for allocating agricultural resources at the Community level, the CAP must bear some of the responsibility for this.
The increasingly swollen budget allocated to the CAP inhibits the development of regional and social measures which might be of benefit to the environment—it is all very well to say that it should be borne outside the CAP, but when the CAP takes up so much of the Community budget that is difficult to assure—for example, assistance for areas where agricultural abandonment and depopulation are significant problems. With so few resources being allocated to the regional budget, the need to incorporate social and environmental considerations into the CAP is all the greater. I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, saying "separate them out". It would be much simpler; but we cannot always make it much simpler.
It may appear that national Governments are free to introduce environmental legislation as they please; but, in practice, the CAP may inhibit certain initiatives. For example, member Governments are naturally anxious to get the maximum benefit from funds available through the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and this has an influence on the structure and take-up of capital grant schemes. Some of these grants are used to finance farm improvement projects with detrimental environmental effects: for example, land drainage, wood and hedge clearance et cetera. Since the agricultural budget already bears the costs of a substantial grant structure, there is naturally a reluctance among national Governments to introduce alternative grant or subsidy schemes which might be environmentally preferable. This is part of the answer to the committees urging that this should be done by national Governments.
The CAP is the cornerstone of free trade in food and agricultural products within the Community, and my criticisms of the CAP are aimed at the principles which it endeavours to apply as well as at the mechanisms used. The specialisation resulting from free trade gives rise to a number of environmental problems, and I would argue strongly that some form of control—or if "control" is too strong a word, then adjustment—is necessary if the EEC is to escape the pronounced degree of regional specialisation which has already occurred in the United States of America.
This reflects our concern that if environmental costs are not enfranchised in market processes, the free operation of a common market may lead to an excessive, sub-optimal degree of regional specialisation.
The CAP alone is not responsible for all rural environ-
746
mental ills. Action at each level of government is required if we are to develop a set of policies capable of producing an acceptable balance between agricultural and environmental priorities. To take one example, drainage operations in the United Kingdom are eligible for up to 70 per cent. grant aid, funded mostly from MAFF rather than from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund sources. These grants are in many cases a cause of the destruction of wildlife habitat. We dealt with a great deal of that during consideration of the Wildlife Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, went some way to help us all get out of that particular problem.
We have a serious problem in the whole thrust of incentives which are given by the CAP. I think that this must be borne in mind. I do not think that it can be dismissed in the way that it is dismissed in paragraphs 65 and 66. I entirely see the problems; I am not in any way trying to cast stones at the subcommittee, who have done a very good job. They recognise some of their problems themselves. One of the most interesting things is in paragraph 65, where they say:
"discrimination in the operation of the CAP against efficient farms, or even taxation of them, in order to provide finance to support economically less viable ones …".
That contrast of efficient as opposed to economically less viable—not efficient as opposed to less efficient, except possibly in a very few in an economic sense—is a gauge of the problem that we have to face.
I entirely agree with them that we must not have the kind of national or Community policies which are going to encourage more over-production in their favouring of the less-favoured areas. But equally I think that the idea that we should place primary responsibility on Governments for the pursuit of social and regional objectives in certain rural areas is not all that realistic either. This is very much a part of what the European ideal is about. Even though it was not written into the Treaty of Rome, I am quite clear that it is a very real and proper interest of the EEC at the moment.
This is a complex subject but it cannot be simplified at the cost of leaving out some of the major problems and I think that we must, every time we deal with a subject like this, deal also with the rural, human and natural responsibilities and subjects which intermingle with this and which make part of the whole rural background.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that I followed carefully his approach? He is an environmentalist and I understand him raising that flag. However, there are other matters in the Community and other matters in farming, for example, which are probably more important in certain circumstances.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. I have seen some of her farm—I admit the ground was covered with snow, but it must be a lovely place not only to work in with shepherds, dogs and all that we have in Cumberland, but also a wonderful place for farming, in the best sense. I know that she herself is dedicated to it and I admire her for all that she does in this respect. How right she was in what she said.

747
Talking about the consumers, I have the whole lot here: the Dairy Trade Federation and the Food Manufacturing Federation. I have even got a CAP proposal blessed by the Retail Consortium. I declare an interest: I am the honorary president. I do not agree entirely with all this document, but it is a good one and much better than other food documents which have been sent to Members.
But, after all, let us look at who produces the food. Our farmers have had a difficult period. I have here figures taking into account the economic conditions and prospects for agriculture. Net farming income fell by almost 24 per cent. in real terms in 1980. In the United Kingdom, farming income has fallen in every year since 1976 and in real terms it is now less than half its 1976 level. The primary reason for this fall was of course that, while the prices farmers received for their produce went up by only 6 per cent. in 1980, their costs increased by 14 per cent. Noble Lords should remember that British farming has a superb record of productivity, which has increased since the war; but no industry could be expected to survive such a squeeze unless there is an improvement in farm output. I believe that the industry could suffer.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I admire very much for the tremendous work he has done in the field of food consumption and trading, and particularly regarding the high standards that are found in his company and which he himself insists upon. I think he will agree that while we must consider the consumer, in the end the people who produce the food also have a major place in our life. In other words, I do defend the farmers, in the best sense. Sometimes they used to disagree with me, but in the end we can only produce food from our own resources if we have good farming, good technical equipment and machinery of the best kind, backed by a really fine advisory service, ADAS.
I taunted the Minister the other day, telling him that I hoped he will see there is no cutback on our main advisory services, because over the years they have continually helped to provide a very efficient agriculture which is in many ways the envy of the world; and even in Europe, in the CAP, we still play a major part. I personally believe—and I am not just saying this because there is a freemasonry between Ministers of Agriculture—that the Minister has done well in the circumstances. I mean that. It is not easy throwing out compliments when you fight each other across the Floor; but I think he has done well and it is a great pity that we were not able to discuss his Price Review proposals the other week. I have listed these very carefully.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has come back and perhaps I may say to him that I do not care whether he is a Social Democrat or what: he is still a very nice fellow and he knows his industry. I believe he is right about the need for a food policy and I think that this should be developed. After all, we have seen starvation in the world and I have always thought when we have had surpluses in the Community that they should be taken to other countries in the world where they are needed. I know that there were difficulties about skimmed milk; but the Community and the CAP, as such, should have a food
748
policy which is aimed at those parts of the world where we see dreadful poverty and the terrible results of malnutrition on the young population. When I looked at those pictures from Somaliland I was horrified to think that war is going on in an area where children are not being fed properly and where the people are only scraping a living on the land. I agree that this is something that the Community could do, and which is very important.
I do not want to go right through the list of what the Minister obtained at the recent Community meeting. I would only say that the price negotiations, as he said, took place this year with a background of farm incomes having fallen substantially over the past two years throughout the Community and in the United Kingdom, as the recent White Paper disclosed. I have emphasised that. There is no doubt that it is important that we should consider it now that our production has to be increased. The 1981 budget provision for milk, for example, is fixed at 10 per cent. below that of the previous year.
Agreement was also reached on co-responsibility arrangements for cereals in the marketing year 1982–83, which will provide savings estimated at £39 million. Again, more flexible intervention arrangements for beef have been made and I am glad to say that the variable meat premium is to be retained. That was something which I did myself when I was a Minister in Europe. I am very proud of it and also I am very proud that we dealt with the butter subsidy, which again is important. I could go right through this long list here which the Minister displayed when he spoke in another place. Unfortunately, we were not able to have our own special report. Nevertheless, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will still look after the interests of agriculture, and we shall listen carefully to what he says.
I think this has been a good debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his chairmanship and to all those who have contributed to this document. I know he takes a great interest in the food industry and plays a prominent part, but he would be the first to admit that the farming community are an important element in the production of food, which affects those products which he himself would like to sell much more of. So I believe we should be grateful for what is being done now in the rural areas. What has happened in Brussels is to our advantage: I am quite certain of that, and I hope we shall recognise that we have a major part to play. I liked the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, when she talked about two world wars. That is what converted me to the Community—not the Common Market's agricultural policy as such but the need to have peace, which would enable us to go forward and have more plentiful supplies of food. We really must think in those terms in many ways. The CAP may have its faults but it is there and we must try to make it work. I believe that in the end, given a fair wind ahead, we shall be able to show that we, the British people, can make our contribution there and still play a leading part in an essential political economy.
8.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the pleasures of debates on this subject in this House is that your

749
Lordships can take a totally detached view and can be particularly generous about other people to whom they may be politically opposed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for what he has said about this CAP review and I am grateful to him for what he has said about my right honourable friend. I will pay my tribute to him in so far as that it was he who, as a very distinguished Minister, introduced the beef premium, and he referred to the butter subsidy too. These were two great achievements and I think that what the noble Lord said at the very end of his speech is the most important part about the whole of the common agricultural policy; it is the co-operating together of all the countries in Europe which is such a huge factor to the benefit of goodwill throughout the world and as a force of stability. It is in that context that one has to see the whole of the common agricultural policy.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone did say that he thought this reflections document should be taken back. It should not be seen as the commissioners' last word on CAP reform—for, of course, it is not. It may have its drawbacks but the Commission have been asked to produce proposals by the end of June for the restructuring of the Community's budget, with particular reference to unacceptably high contributions such as that made by the United Kingdom. This is bound to involve the Commission in a further searching look at the common agricultural policy.
This has been a fascinating debate—at least to me—and one of the points which the reflections paper made clear was that the Community can no longer afford to offer an open-ended guarantee on an unlimited volume of production—especially to those who are in surplus. That is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, characteristically and perpetually returned, and quite rightly too. It is true that surplus production of the order we have seen recently is a waste of resources, while the problem of disposing of surpluses exacerbates the Community's relationships with its trading partners.
The Select Committee's impression was that the Commission's approach in this document was directed more to the financial aspects of the policy than to controlling surplus production itself. We are all well aware that the problem of surpluses must be tackled and we shall not be satisfied—and certainly Her Majesty's Government will not be satisfied—with measures which merely shift the cost of disposing of the surpluses on to the Community's consumers.
The Select Committee was also concerned, as were your Lordships, that the Commission's approach might imply discrimination against efficient farmers. I think it would be quite wrong for discrimination to be made against efficient farmers because in a world in which there is an overall great shortage of food it cannot be in anyone's long-term interest to discriminate against efficient farmers. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will not go along with any discrimination of that kind.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that processors did not like the price fixing results very much. I suppose that is understandable and I suppose they would have preferred it if there had been no price increase at all, because food is part of their raw material. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was absolutely
750
right when he said no longer is there cheap food; I believe he said there was no "bargain basement" of food products in the world—I think that was his expression and it was rather an attractive one. What one has to do, either as a Government or with a common agricultural policy, is to weigh up the balance of increasing price of food on the one hand and, on the other hand, give the agricultural community adequate resources with which to do their job.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, said that this was "no big deal" for the farming community, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned that farmers would not get rich as a result of this, Perfectly true. This result has given some increase to the farming community; it has not recouped all their costs, yet has given them some proper stimulation and return for the work they do. It is quite correct that farmers should have an increase in their prices. I should declare my interest as being a farmer myself—but I also happen to be a consumer of food.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that national aids were unfair. He referred to them being unfair in so far as they might have discriminated in areas where there should be no such discrimination, and he referred to France giving national aids worth over £400 million. Lord Sainsbury is quite right; if you are a member of the Community the whole purpose of a common agricultural policy is that it should be common. There are areas in which it is perfectly permissible for national aids to be given—that is quite right. What is wrong is where countries take advantage, as some countries do, of aid which facilitates unfair competition with other countries. We have seen this occur in the area of subsidised gas, with the glasshouse industry currently facing great difficulties because the Dutch have unfairly subsidised their gas.
The Commission has recognised this point and it is also one that my right honourable friend has pursued and will continue to pursue, not only in respect of the price of Dutch gas but in respect of any area in which, in the view of my right honourable friend, member states are seen to be unfairly subsidising competitive areas of agricultural production, which is against the Community's principles. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend will take up such instances most strongly with the Commission, as he has done in the past.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the fact that some members of the Community were getting a bigger result than we were because their currencies were devalued, and therefore they were able to add a certain amount to the prices of their commodities; and the noble Lords implied that this was unfair. I do not know that it would be particularly helpful for me to go into this particular aspect at this hour, given all the complexities of the green pound and the green currencies. I will say that there was severe pressure on the Italian lire which involved a 6 per cent. devaluation in the lire, and at the same time there was an adjustment to take account of the appreciation in sterling which occurred since the last realignment in 1979. There is a curious thing called the "basket of currencies" and when those get readjusted it very often throws out apparent anomalies. One of those anomalies was that some countries were

751
able to devalue their currencies and thereby, admittedly, get a better result. But the answer is that agriculture cannot be insulated indefinitely from the effect of currency movements, and, so long as some currencies strengthen and others weaken, a system of common prices must at some stage adjust itself.
I would only remind your Lordships that when we were a country with a weak currency and other countries had stronger currencies, we were glad to take advantage of the opportunity which that gave us from time to time to devalue the green pound, and thereby to obtain price increases which were higher than the average. Now that the boot is on the other foot, we cannot complain too much about that.
My noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, both referred to a highly important area of agriculture, which is the less favoured areas—what we call the hill farms—and the essential requirement that those who farm in those areas should be entitled to a proper livelihood. They questioned whether, in fact, there was a possibility of some form of financial assistance being given to them, which, in the circumstances of the environment, might be better than increasing the cost of the common agricultural policy by permitting greater surpluses.
My noble friend Lord Sandford suggested that the Government should give assistance to farmers in these areas for non-agricultural purposes, such as tourism and craft industries which help to increase employment and prosperity in the countryside. I agree that it would be quite wrong to look to the common agricultural policy as a major instrument for solving rural problems of a regional or social character, rather than an agricultural character. The danger of trying to use the common agricultural policy for this is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, fears, that it could exacerbate the problems of over-production in the more favoured areas. Apart from limited measures of structural improvement which are possible on a Community basis, it must be for national Governments to tackle these problems, provided that they do so within the Community's rules of competition.
My noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, both referred to paragraph 66 of the committee's report. I agree with the broad objectives of this which are, I think, consistent with the Government's policy. It is not our approach, when considering the appropriate level of support prices, to take into account the particular problems of less favoured regions or categories of farmers. On the other hand, we see a continuing place for Community support to special measures of assistance to clearly delineated areas with particular natural handicaps, such as our own hill areas.
We also see a continuing need for support to structural improvement through aid to investment, amalgamation and so on. We see a continuing place for Community, as well as national, resources here. But I agree with the committee that it is important that such aid should not be used to exacerbate existing surplus problems, or to distort competition.
My noble friend referred to the amendment which he moved on the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This all ties up with the same area which he and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, were discussing this evening.
752
All I can tell them is that the Government are considering this whole range of problems sympathetically. There is a clear need, at least in some less favoured areas, for farmers to diversify their activities in order to obtain a more satisfactory and secure income. There are obvious advantages in the co-ordination of assistance for these purposes being exercised by the Ministry of Agriculture, who will be able to take an overall view of the farmers' position. On the other hand, I am bound to tell your Lordships that there are practical difficulties, not least in terms of the availability of finance and manpower. I would say to my noble friend Lord Sandford that that is as far as I can go this evening, but I can assure him that this matter is being given some considerable consideration.
Of all the subjects milk, and the surplus of milk, is the one which concerned the committee and your Lordships most of the problems of the common agricultural policy. I think that we should get this clear. The net increase in prices this year is below the estimate of the increase in input costs for the dairy industry within the Community. In real terms, therefore, this will be yet another year in which the improvement in prices will not meet the increase in input costs. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the price increase itself will be a stimulus to increased production.
We regretted the decision of the Commission to withdraw its proposal for a supplementary levy. That is what your Lordships' committee wanted, and your Lordships have stated again today that that is what you would like. That is what we, too, would have liked. But this happened because of the strong opposition of a number of member states. We hope to be able to return to the principle that those who create the increased production should meet the cost of disposing of that production. I can assure your Lordships that we intend to try to pursue that policy.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked what the super-levy would have produced had it come into effect. The answer is that it would have produced 123 million European currency units in a full year. The matter of milk is a great problem. We wish to see that efficient milk production is permitted, but that those who cause the problems should be the ones who are responsible for disposing of the surpluses.
A number of noble Lords—Lord Mottistone, Lord Walston and Lord Mackie—referred to the long term and said how desirable it is to have a long-term policy in the common agricultural policy, because everyone will then know where he is. I agree entirely, but it is, of course, difficult to achieve in practice. I remember speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley—it was not in the Chamber—and I asked him: "Why can't we have a long-term agreement on agricultural policy?" He put it very succinctly. He replied: "Remember, agriculture is long-term. Food is short-term and food is politics".
Therefore, even if you have a long-term policy and, in theory, everyone knows where he is, it has to be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing needs and changing circumstances, which is not very easy to achieve in practice. But my right honourable friend has made it plain that he has an interest in persuading the Council to adopt a longer-term approach. In particular sections—for example, in milk—there is clearly a need for action over a number of years. A

753
four- or five-year plan, if it could be agreed, would undoubtedly help. A comprehensive five-year plan for the whole food and agriculture sector might be pretty ambitious, and I doubt whether it would be achievable.
Of course, the presidency is not a long period during which to exert a great deal of influence, and our freedom of action is very much bound to depend on whether there are other pressing issues of a more immediate nature which it will be our duty to resolve. But I can assure the House that my right honourable friend will be giving active consideration to how best, in the circumstances of the United Kingdom's presidency, the Community might be encouraged to take a longer-term look at the common agricultural policy.
I hope that I have been able to answer some of the questions which were raised during the debate. I apologise for having inflicted two speeches this evening on your Lordships. However, so far as I am concerned the debate has been of great benefit.
9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, at this late hour it would not be appropriate for me to respond to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has just said and I shall not attempt to do so, though it is tempting to reply to some of the points which were made. I should like very much to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, in particular those who are not members of Sub-Committee D. May I also thank those who are members of that sub-committee. However, it is very useful for us to have the benefit of the approach of other people to our problems and to widen the discussion thereby.
I must apologise for the fact that when I concluded my opening speech I could not regain my thread of thought after having been briefly interrupted. I can only put this down to the fact that this was an act of God in retribution for having stayed up last night both to speak and to vote against the bishops!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought it was a habit of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Mottistone: It could be put that way. With those concluding remarks, may I thank noble Lords again for having taken part in this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.