Lords Sitting of 19 June 1981

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Employment Policy: ILO Recommendation
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 consider themselves bound by Recommendation No. 122 (Employment Policy Recommendation, 1964) of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully subscribe to the general principles contained in International Labour Organisation Convention No. 122 (Employment Policy Convention 1964) to which ILO Recommendation No. 122 is a useful supplement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the forecast of the Manpower Services Commission, of the 1 million who are expected to become school-leavers this summer only 50 per cent. are likely to obtain employment and that by 1982 the figure will probably be one-third? How does the noble Lord reconcile that with the quite specific and not general obligations that the Government assumed in ratifying Convention No. 122, requiring that they should pursue a policy of full employment as a major political objective and that the policy should aim at a situation in which—and I quote:
"there is work for all who are available for and seeking work"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned by name the Manpower Services Commission and their forecast, but the special employment measures which are being undertaken by the Government in the current year will receive approximately £1 billion, and that will not be a mere fleabite. I would also add that the Youth Opportunities Programme alone will be assisting more than 400,000 young people in the present year, which is a major improvement over the last two years. I think that that in itself is an adequate response to the queries of the experts.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the measures to which he has referred are in the main endeavours to deal with the situation but not to deal with the real problem; and although he says that the Government fully subscribe to the recommendation referred to in this Question, does he not accept that the unemployment problem is mainly due to the fiscal and economic policies of the present Government?
Lord Lyell: In one word, my Lords—No.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord how he reconciles his Answer with the fact that cuts have been made against all types of education—higher education, medium education, primary education, everything. And now that we know that in the years to come there will have to be more unemployment because of "silicon chips with everything", does he not agree that we should be giving special help to education throughout the whole range in order to create jobs?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the policies of education run hand in hand with the Youth Opportunities Programme. Certainly so far as the question posed by the noble Baroness is directed at youth opportunities in general and unemployment it can be answered by the fact that Government policies are, first, to reduce inflation, which in itself will produce stable employment opportunities once we have conquered inflation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the answers he has given are thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he not aware that the Government are not pursuing, as a major objective of policy, the aims set out in the convention, and in the circumstances, in view of the Government's desire to secure a shakeout of employment in industry, would it not be far more honourable to denounce the convention itself in accordance with Article 7 of the convention?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I might draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 1 of Article 1 in the convention where I think the noble Lord will find these words:
"each member shall declare and pursue, as a major goal …"—
and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not about time that we all recognised that any Government, of whatever political complexion, will now have to face severe problems of unemployment in a world recession and that we should do all we can to alleviate unemployment, particularly among young people?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is a helpful question for which I thank the noble Lord. Indeed we are doing that.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend take the opportunity of reminding the Opposition that the cut in the schools higher education programme is a reflection of the very much smaller number of people coming forward for educational purposes, and that those cuts were made for reasons resulting from the drop in the birthrate many years ago—no doubt in times of Socialist rule—by 3 per cent., whereas the actual cut in education is about 1·5 per cent.? So, in fact, per head of the pupils in our schools there has been an increase in expenditure.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for support from my noble friend, and indeed from all quarters of the House, but I think that is going just a margin wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am surprised to learn from the questions and the answers that the ILO is now dealing with the constructive effect of unemployment rather than with employment? I always understood, certainly from my earlier experience, that the ILO was responsible for general conditions in connection with the employment of the working class and also for matters of safety and the co-ordination of efforts among the various nations associated with the ILO. Is this something new that the ILO has undertaken?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not think so. I do have a document which relates to every country which has ratified conventions since 1919, which was a little before my time. No doubt the noble Lord could tell us that the policy is the same and has remained the same in the ILO ever since then.
Lord Spens: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that there are a number of restrictive practices operated by the trade unions which are preventing employers from taking on more employees?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that that, again, is a little wide of the original Question.

Lagan College, Belfast
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they will give to the first religiously integrated school, Lagan College, which is to open in Belfast in the autumn of 1981, and whether they will take steps to encourage further integration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, Lagan college is being established as an independent school, not as a grant aided school. The founders are the All Children Together Charitable Trust. I have told them that Her Majesty's Government will give them whatever assistance they can consistent with that status.
As to the second part of the noble Baroness's Question, Her Majesty's Government will favour practical proposals for integration wherever they are put forward with the general support of the parents concerned. Nothing would be more counter-productive, however, than to try to force integration upon people opposed to it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for his Answer, perhaps I could pursue the matter a little further. I think it must be agreed that there is at the moment no provision in Northern Ireland for parents wishing to educate their children in integrated schools. Is the noble Lord aware that it is generally accepted that if children are educated together the fear and tension and mistrust
820
which so tragically divides the two communities in Northern Ireland might diminish? Would the noble Lord give a more positive assurance that he will grant this school maintained status at the earliest possible time, and that, pending that, he will provide parents of children passing their 11-plus exam the same facilities for any Government grant for which they would qualify at any other school?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Baroness's question, I remain entirely convinced that it is proper to ascertain the wishes of the parents in each individual case rather than relying on generalised opinion polls which apply to a large mass of the population, and that it would be quite improper to overrule the wishes of parents as to the sort of school to which they want their children to go.
On the second part of the noble Baroness's question I can say that any application for grant-aided status from the school would of course be considered under the normal statutory procedures for such applications. The Government would, however, need to have regard to educational considerations as well as the integration factor, and it must be borne in mind that we are just entering a period of substantial decline in secondary school enrolments. It would be necessary for the school to demonstrate that there was sufficient parental demand to enable it to become a viable all-ability secondary school in an area where there is not likely to be any shortage of secondary school places in other sorts of school.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in wishing to support my noble friend in her plea as strongly as possible, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister these questions: Does the noble Lord know that children of both persuasions go on holiday in groups together, that there is never any trouble, that they relate extremely well to one another; but when they get back into the ghetto atmospheres of the cities there is no way in which they can continue to see one another and continue these relationships? Is not that tragic?
Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that the main opposition to the integration of schools in Northern Ireland comes not from the parents, as he suggests—and I would add, not only in Northern Ireland, but, lamentably, in the Republic of Ireland, as well—but from the priests on both sides? Does he not consider this lamentable?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, I am well aware of the admirable work being done by various organisations running joint holidays. Indeed, I provide the money for quite a number of these. In so doing, I very much support those which have a follow-up service so that children are not swept apart permanently after they return to their homes.
On the second part of the noble Lord's question, whatever the origin of the feeling, the fact remains that a very large majority of parents with children in schools appear to wish, and assert that they wish, them to be in schools of the kind already provided. All I can do, and do willingly, is offer assistance to those existing schools which wish to change their status with the support of the parents of the children concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in view of the present determination in England to establish joint Roman Catholic Church schools under the grant-aided system, and in view of the fact that very distinct conversations are going on with the Churches in England on this matter, could I have an assurance that the experience they are learning in this country will be conveyed to those on the other side of the Irish Sea?
Lord Elton: Gladly, my Lords, and I should say that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to deny to citizens in Northern Ireland the same rights of conscience as exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, having some experience of how carefully Answers to Questions are worded, I should like to ask the Minister how far the word, "favour", commits the Government?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the Government are without fear or favour.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the very moving precedent given by this school, may I ask whether it is not possible in suitable places—it may be a few in the first instance—to establish public schools which are non-denominational and which teach ethical principles rather than those of any particular Church?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are in a semantic difficulty, in that the words "public school" mean different things in different places. If the noble Lord means a school that is privately funded, then that is the sort of school that the Lagan College proposes to be. If he means a school that is funded by the public, then I would refer him to the Throne Primary School in Belfast, which has been approved as a controlled integrated school. That status will apply from a convenient date in the next school year.

Horserace Betting Levy Bill
11.22 a.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Crawshaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Payments on account of bookmakers' levy]:
Lord Peart Lord Peart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, after ("Board") insert ("together with the two members of the Bookmakers' Committee appointed by the Secretary of State under section 24(2)(d) of the Act of 1963.").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to make a short statement. It came to my ears that the Opposition were said to be
822
seeking to frustrate this Bill by delaying it and therefore virtually causing havoc as regards aid to the racing industry and the board itself. I should like to say that that is certainly not our intention. The speeches which were made on that occasion were constructive and I spelt out the difference between us, which is really a question of the composition of the Levy Board. In other words, what I tried to suggest would therefore involve an amendment increasing the membership of the Levy Board by two: one being drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee and the second being the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council.
I suggested also that Clause 1(5) of the Bill should be amended so that consideration of objections would rest upon the independent members of the Levy Board and two members drawn from the Bookmakers' Committee. If that were done, I believe that the Levy Board itself would be strengthened because the voices of those who are involved in the day-to-day business of racing would be heard, and I think that that is very important.
I know that many noble Lords who have racing interests here and who make a marvellous contribution to the industry and to the sport will appreciate that I in no way wish to frustrate this Bill. It will give help to the racing industry and it is in that spirit that I participate in the debate. If one reads the Marshalled List, one recognises that the amendments are all related. I do not know what the procedure will be, but, if the Chair will permit me, I think that it would be right and proper to discuss the amendments en bloc, rather than go through each one in turn. If that is so, I should like to make another statement.
I think that Amendment No. 4 is superfluous and, indeed, does not make sense. The words to be inserted at the end of the phrase are already to be added by Amendment No. 5. Unless I hear to the contrary, therefore, I shall not move it. I should like to leave the matter at that. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I think that it might be helpful at this stage to advise the Committee of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I am very glad that the noble Lord saw fit to advise your Lordships as he did in such felicitous terms, both in his speech on Second Reading and in his prologue to the amendments a few moments ago.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord suggested that this Bill, which deals with advance payments of levy, should be amended in three ways: there should be an increase in the Bookmakers' Committee's representation on the Horserace Betting Levy Board; the enlarged Bookmakers' Committee representation resulting from this amendment should be involved in the functions created by the Bill; and the chairman of the Horseracing Advisory Council should be given membership of the board in his own right, instead of, as at present, occupying one of the Jockey Club places, thereby restoring a member to the Jockey Club. The amendments now moved by the noble Lord are intended to achieve those ends.
Your Lordships will, I know, wish to reach a decision on the issues of principle involved. In the case of a Bill promoted by a Private Member, however, it is one of the functions of the Government spokesman

823
to draw attention to drafting defects. I have to advise the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that his amendments are still defective in certain respects. Basically, the point at issue is that if the Secretary of State is made to appoint the Bookmakers' Committee representatives, it becomes necessary to examine all the functions at present conferred on the three independent members he appoints so as to determine which, if any of them, should also be exercised by the two bookmakers, and to ensure that all the relevant provisions precisely achieve the desired result. For example, it would seem desirable to make it clear that bookmaker members were not intended to be brought into the role, under Section 26(2) of the 1963 Act, of arbitrating about the rate of their remuneration in the event of a dispute between the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will agree that that is the rather curious situation in which they might find themselves if, as suggested in the amendments, statutory provision were made for it.
Similar consequential amendments would be required to the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 and the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Board Act 1972. The 1972 Act is particularly important, in that it provides for any functions of the Government-appointed members of the Levy Board to be exercised by any two such members, and these quorum provisions would need to be varied and related to the various functions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has suggested that we should consider this group of amendments together, perhaps I may continue in like vein and say that the amendment to Section 24(2)(d) of the 1963 Act, which provides for two members of the Bookmakers' Committee to be appointed to the Levy Board by the Secretary of State, would also need to be expanded to deal with the terms on which they hold and vacate office. A good deal of work would need to be done on this Bill if it were satisfactorily to achieve the objects of the noble Lord, Lord Peart.
I now turn to the issues of principle. One of the three main objects of the amendments is to give the Bookmakers' Committee's representatives on the board the duty, jointly with the independent members, of determining the amounts to be paid in accordance with the scheme for advance payments and of adjudicating on the claims for a reduction on grounds of hardship. The former is a factual exercise in which there is virtually no discretionary element and there seem to be no strong arguments either way as to involving the bookmakers' representatives.
The issue of substance—and I wish to emphasise this to my noble friends and to the Committee as a whole—is whether it is appropriate that the representatives of the Bookmakers' Committee should be involved with the independent members in considering applications under Clause 3 of the Bill for relief from advance payments. Noble Lords will remember that, of course, Clause 3 was added to the Bill in Committee in another place when it was discussed there.
In making an application for such relief a bookmaker would be bound to reveal details of his business affairs and the knowledge of those details would be disclosed to bookmakers' representatives who might well be his competitors and certainly could not be
824
said to be impartial, which might be enough to discourage any such application. The bookmakers ask for provision to be made for relief where bookmakers' circumstances have changed. Noble Lords will wish to consider whether the fact that it is an offence to disclose information given by a bookmaker for the purpose of the levy is sufficient to reassure a bookmaker in circumstances where the person to whom the information had to be given in the first place is a competitor. I think that that is a very important point.
The Levy Board has given a firm undertaking that it will consult the Bookmakers' Committee on all notices of determination and applications for relief that appear to them to be different or contentious. I hope that I shall not weary the Committee by going into a little further detail, but there are other matters of principle which go beyond these particular amendments.
First, the Horserace Betting Levy Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for introducing it into your Lordships' House. It has been well received in another place and on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and it has been further underwritten today by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in his opening statement. However, I must warn the Committee that any amendments at this stage—particularly when, as these are, they are technically defective—must seriously jeopardise the chances of the Bill reaching the statute book. I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Peart, nor the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, nor their noble friends would wish the Bill to be lost.
Secondly, the Bill began as a measure to deal with advance payments only. These amendments touch on this, but they are also concerned much more substantially with the reconstitution of the Levy Board, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will recognise that. This, with all its consequences, is not a matter to be undertaken without the full consultation with all concerned. If there were general agreement that change is needed, this could be done in another Bill directed for that purpose. I think that I have probably said enough as regards the Government's interest, and I shall leave it at that for the time being.
Lord Wigg: I hope that the Committee will forgive me, but I am not 100 per cent. fit and I could not attend the Second Reading debate for that reason. However, I felt that I must come today because this is not a tiny Bill. This is a Bill of fundamental importance. It does not concern itself primarily with the membership of the Bookmakers' Committee; it goes much deeper than that.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a couple of general points. France now has a new Government under Monsieur Mitterand, and one of the things that he has done is to appoint a Minister of Leisure and Sport. This week Mr. Denis Healey has come out with a statement of his personal beliefs, and it is most encouraging that he, too, has made a statement about the importance of a leisure and sport policy at this time.
All the western democracies face the basic fact of unemployment. First, there is short-time working; then there is just a little loss of jobs; and then it becomes

825
a spate. This is not because of the wickedness or wisdom of different Governments; it is because of the advance of technology. What people do with their leisure time is of absolutely fundamental importance. If I may use a barrack-room aphorism:
"They can stand at street corners,
They can spit and they shout,
And they talk about things they know nothing about."
If you do that, then Brixton is inevitable. On the other hand, constructive opportunities can be provided for people to participate or, if they will, to view by going to football matches, and so on. Again, hooliganism in football is not an accident. In this country there has been nothing to choose under either Government; there is no settled policy. The Home Office spokesman today has a bit of a job on because he had a pretty weak brief; I shall be kind to that and come to it later. The Government are concerned with only one thing. This is why Lord Butler, as Home Secretary, acted in 1960. They were faced with the fact that, if there is a growth of illegal betting, we shall get the Mafia and corruption of the police. That is what Lord Butler set out to prevent, on an agreed basis. He brought everyone into discussions, and much, if I may say so, was due to the wisdom of the late Lord Crathorne. We had the Peppiatt Committee.
Within the Department of the Environment there is a Minister for Sport. The present one is no better or no worse than the last one; neither had or has any power. There then is the Department of Employment, the Minister of which ought to be concerned because he is dealing with the effects of unemployment. Finally, there is the Treasury. I hope that all noble Lords who will vote and take decisions today will take the trouble to read the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling and read the evidence given by the Treasury, because the Chancellor has also become converted. Very recently he made a speech in answer to critics in another place, saying, "Look, we cannot increase taxation or the levy. If we do, we shall have the danger of increased illegal betting". If your Lordships would like the reference, they should read paragraphs 6.8, 6.59 and 25.13 which all say the same—that the combined level of taxation and levy has reached the limit. They use the word "dangerous"; that is not my word.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and the Royal Commission. It is significant that the Minister did not mention it today, and in the debate on this Bill in the other place it was not mentioned. Yet no one who is concerned with this problem and with the problem of illegality can look at it without examining the Royal Commission's report.
I would remind my noble friends on this side of the Committee, who never seem to rejoice, of the fact that when we took office in 1964 the total amount of revenue raised was of the order of £34 million. Today it is over £500 million. When we did it in 1966, on the other side they laughed and said, "What impertinence to try to succeed where Mr. Winston Churchill failed!" We did. Do you know why? Not because we are clever, but because we do our homework. They did not do it. In 1963, with a stroke of the pen, the late Reginald Maudling put paid to fixed odds betting. One of the major causes of
826
football hooliganism arises from that. On that side they have consistently misread the signs.
Today we have this Bill because it is said that the bookmakers need to be taxed on the current year rather than on previous years. When I became chairman of the Levy Board I never wanted the job. Field-Marshal Lord Harding had retired and the job was offered to Viscount Head. When he found that there was no money, he packed it in. So I was drafted. What did I find? Six hundred and fourteen thousand pounds had been given to the Jockey Club at New-market to rebuild the Rowley Course. We had acquired the National Stud next door. I went down and what did I find?—the Jockey Club had taken all the choicest paddocks. What for? To breed horses? No. They were taken over to rear pheasants for the Jockey Club shoot. That is a fact. Now, we are told that this Bill covers £¾ million which bookmakers are to be paid by way of interest. What are the facts?
The Duke of Devonshire: If I may intervene, it is quite untrue to say that the Jockey Club acquired extra paddocks merely to breed pheasants. It is quite untrue to say that the Jockey Club acquired those extra paddocks to rear pheasants. It is true that there is a Jockey Club shoot. It is very modest, and the suggestion casts a slur on a very distinguished body of people.
Lord Wigg: The noble Duke does not come to your Lordships' House very often and at least he should listen. What I said was that I went down there and I found that the choicest paddocks had been given over to the breeding of pheasants. That is a fact, as I said publicly at the time. I will go further.
The Duke of Devonshire: I will take up the matter privately with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He will hear from me in due course.
Lord Wigg: I do not operate in that way. What I say publicly I publicly support and if the noble Duke wishes, I will do a bit more. The bookmakers get £¾ million by way of interest. What are the facts? The Levy Board ran into difficulties. It is short of cash. Why is it short of cash? It comes to the bookmakers as it did with the levy and asks for a scheme on a voluntary basis. In the case of the levy, a number anted-up but a number did not, and the ones who did ante up asked, "Why should the others get away with it?". So they supported the levy on the basis that it should help racing and that it should not be a subsidy. Noble Lords may read paragraph 19 of the Peppiatt Report.
Now let us turn to the report of the Royal Commission. What did that report say? Perhaps the noble Lords opposite do not know this but as a result of the present policies, under pressure from the Jockey Club and the Levy Board, today the racing industry is hopelessly addicted to subsidies. Those are the facts, and withdrawal would mean collapse. So the bookmakers have agreed to provide advance payments, and one-third of them ante up two-thirds of the total, nearly £10 million out of £15 million. Again, those bookmakers who pay, ask, "Why should we pay

827
when the others get away with it?" and that is why they support this Bill.
Now, this figure of £¾ million is regarded as something terrible. It is regarded as terrible that bookmakers should get interest, but what do the Levy Board do when they get the money? They pay 12 per cent. I have here a list of local authorities to whom they have advanced the money and drawn interest of 14 per cent. That does not harm racing, does it? On top of that, interest payable in respect of bookmakers is supposed to be terrible, but the Jockey Club had used its position. It has advanced loans in relation to Haydock Park interest-free over 22 years, which gives them £22 million. It has given loans to Cheltenham of £3½ million. The noble Duke, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, has interest-free money amounting to £70 million. So, if one has interest-free loans and a policy of giving prize money ad lib, then obviously one is going to run into cash-flow difficulties. That is what this Bill is about.
I cannot speak for much longer but tell your Lordships this: unless the policies on which this Bill is based are amended, the next Grand National is going to be the last. I will go further; there will be no Derby after 10 years. Those are the basic facts which must be faced. There are two ways of dealing with this matter. One can deal with it through the levy, and if your Lordships will read the debate which took place on the 14th December 1960, they will see that I stood by my policies and opposed my party. There is no party in this. Mr. Raison has said the same thing; that we are back on an agreed basis. If we do it this way the choice one has is either the levy or direct grant. The Treasury come down on the side of opposing a levy and plead for direct grants, approved—as they should be in a democracy—by the House of Commons. I am still in favour of the levy, but the money must be spent properly. My noble friend Lord Peart, whose statemanship and wisdom are an example to us all, has made the point that this is not simply an issue of Jockey Club power, although we have been told by a senior steward of the Jockey Club what the game is all about—power is the name of the game. I am not concerned about that. I struggled for 30 years to get the policy right. It was right, but it is not right now. It can only be put right by people doing their homework. The Jockey Club and the Levy Board have not done their homework, and I therefore support this amendment.
11.46 a.m.
Lord Manton: Before commenting on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, I should like to make a brief reference to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He singled out two race-courses. I believe he mentioned Haydock Park and Goodwood, of which he was critical for having received interest-free loans. May I remind the noble Lord that the largest interest-free loan of all, for Sandown Park, was negotiated under his chairmanship.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peart, say he hoped that his amendment would not damage the Bill. However, my noble friend Lord Sandys has pointed out the dangers that these amendments could mean for the Bill, by delaying it. The amendment
828
proposes two additional seats on the Levy Board; one of them for the bookmakers and the other for the Chairman of the Horse Racing Advisory Council. The Levy Board has been constituted for 20 years. It was established by statute and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that its constitution might well be reviewed. Any shortcomings in the original concept of an eight-member board should now be apparent, and indeed the circumstances which led to the original constitution may have now changed. Such a review should also encompass the board's Bookmakers Committee, which was also established by statute, to see that it reflects the present requirement of the bookmaking industry. However, this is a very delicate matter. It involves balancing many different interests within horse racing. Any proposals for change should be the subject of the widest possible debate and the fullest consultation within the horse racing industry before being enacted in the legislation.
There may well be merit in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, although I believe that the board as present constituted has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances. I would urge the House to allow this matter to be fully debated within horse racing circles before any change is made.
On the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that the more wide-ranging gambling legislation which the Government intend to introduce later in this Parliament might be a more suitable place for changes of this nature to be contemplated, and I must say that I agree with him. The Bill before your Lordships has the simple objective of tightening up procedure for collecting the levy. This is very important to the finances of the horse racing industry and it would be a tragedy if procedural delays caused by amendments which have little or nothing to do with the original purposes of this Bill were to result in the Bill failing to reach the statute book. We are faced with a tight time-schedule, which reinforces my view that we should today reject the amendment before us although, as I have said, there well may be merit in reviewing the statutory board, whose original concept was first developed more than 20 years ago.
There are two small matters arising from Lord Peart's speech at Second Reading to which I should like to refer. In justifying these changes to the constitution of the Levy Board he criticised the board's policy on prize money and on interest-free loans to racecourses. First, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, criticised the amount spent by the board on prize money. We all know that it is easy to get emotive on this issue—"subsidising wealthy owners" is a cry that we sometimes hear—but I would remind the Committee that less than 50 per cent. of the prize money goes to the winning owner in the major races. The trainers, the jockeys, the stable staff, the apprentice training school and the weighing room staff all receive a share.
Furthermore, if one takes 1978 as the base year, the Levy Board's contribution to prize money in 1982—and this scheme is just in process of being published at this moment—would have to rise over 20 per cent. to maintain its real value. In the event, the increase for 1982 is likely to be around 12 per cent., so prize money is failing to keep pace with inflation. Flat racing, I would remind noble Lords, is international.

829
If, in comparison, the level at home falls too far below that of our major competitors, then our stars and several of their human counterparts, the jockeys, will race overseas, and the great spectacle of racing will suffer, as will our valuable breeding industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, also criticised interest-free loans for racecourses as being expensive. Under previous chairmanships loans to racecourses were sometimes made as outright grants and the money did not come back. The present policy, with which I should like to associate myself and with which I thoroughly agree, is a policy of interest-free loans. On this basis the money is recycled. Most of those loans are made on a fairly short-term basis, maybe four or five years, so the money is recycled. One racecourse is improved, and four or five years later that money comes back into the pool and goes out to another racecourse. Personally, I think that this must be sensible.
Between September 1961 and March 1980 the board has allocated nearly £21 million in assistance to racecourses by way of grants and loans, but there remains an enormous amount of work to be done if our courses are to be able to compete for spectators against other leisure pursuits.
Lord Mancroft: I do not want to repeat again at this stage of the Bill the remarks I made on Second Reading, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, must by now have realised that there is a real danger of this useful Bill's being lost if he persists in his amendments. I do not disagree with much of what he has said, and I agree also with many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Manton, that there may by now be a time for a reassessment of the work of the Levy Board. Having served on it for four years myself, there is one point I should like to make. Those who were representing the Tote, as I did, and the bookmakers, as others did, under the chairmanship first of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and then of Sir Desmond Plummer gave their views not only from the standpoint of the Tote or the bookmaking industry; they spoke, I think I am right in saying, from the interests of the racing world as a whole, and that point should not be overlooked. All the same, it does not alter the fact that there may now be reasons for looking at the constitution again.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, has not told us—I think probably out of tact—what sort of negotiations he has had with the Levy Board itself. I will not press him to say. What I would press him to do is to realise that the weight of feeling in the Committee now is not against what he has been saying but is against any possible chance of our losing the Bill; and that view I put to your Lordships all the more vehemently having listened carefully to the remarks of Sir Desmond Plummer, the present chairman of the Levy Board, only two or three days ago about the financial position of the racing industry as a whole today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will do nothing to make that matter worse.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Wigg: I have now recovered my breath a little and I can perhaps deal with one or two points that have
830
been made. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Manton, and I read his speech on the Second Reading. I plead with him, please go and do your homework. Do not face up to me; face up to what the Royal Commission has said. It points out that the levy should be spent in the interests of punters, because, after all, it is they who contribute it. In paragraph 9.108 they say that the levy is derived from the lowest paid section of the community. It is spent in the interests of the wealthiest.
What is the result? The noble Lord, Lord Manton, talks about the spread. After all, I introduced the spread. I know its weaknesses. It is said by the chairman of the Levy Board and by others that this was done in order to help stable wage staff. Go and tell that to the Transport and General Workers Union! They have written to the Home Secretary asking for these changes to be made because they point out one simple fact which the noble Lord, Lord Manton, does not seem to know: 55 per cent. of prize money goes to 12 trainers. So all the rest of the trainers and all the rest of the stable staff get nothing.
The Royal Commission point out that the case for prize money has been put too high. It is not the principal thing. Of course it is if you are a breeder, and particularly a commercial breeder—and they are very good. They have got £375,000 for a fillies' premium, which is a complete waste of money. But, having tasted blood, they now want a colts' premium. In the end I suppose they are brassnecked enough to ask for a geldings' premium. But look at the result: the Ascot Gold Cup, four runners. On radio yesterday it was said that people will not run the horses because they are afraid of winning, because if they win it puts a black mark against them for breeding. Last Saturday at York—Lord Manton would have been there—in the Michael Sobell Handicap there were two runners. In the Autumn Summer Cup there were five runners. Turn to jumping: no steeplechasers. So this is the result.
But do not answer me; answer the Royal Commission's Report, because if you do not answer it you are going to reduce racing in this country to dog racing, and, God knows!, that has got into a mess for the same reason: those who run it do not know anything about it. Lord Manton came along. He is a Tote monopolist, and he would, if he could, by a stroke of the pen, have a Tote monopoly. But you cannot. You cannot compare this—
Lord Manton: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Wigg: Just a moment, please. I will give way in a moment. You cannot give way to that argument, because how you bet is decided by the punter. If he cannot do it legally he will do it illegally. That is what this is about. It is on this that Lord Butler based his legislation. If the noble Lord will read the report of the debate on 14th December 1960 he will find that Lord Renton, on behalf of the Government, said—and I supported him—that it is on the assumption, indeed on the understanding, that we agreed to two members, that the Jockey Club would represent the outside major interests. They did not do a thing about it until I became chairman in 1967.
During that period from 1961 to 1967 every penny

831
that was spent by the Levy Board under Jockey Club pressure was spent illegally—I stress it, illegally—because they were required to get the authority of the Home Secretary, which they never sought. I tell you they are still doing it. That is what this is about. If public money is spent, either by levy or by taxation, it must be spent properly and not in the interests of a body like the Jockey Club. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, does not want to upset the balance and that is why he has framed the amendments as they are, and if the Committee is wise and is really concerned about racing, sport and leisure, it will vote for them.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made much play about the squandering of money. Speaking as a member of the appeal committee of the Animal Health Trust at Newmarket, I wish to make it clear that without money from the betting levy, the work done by the Equine Research Station would greatly suffer.
Lord Wigg: Hear, hear!
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord should remember that because that is an important contribution to the future of the bloodstock industry in this country. I hope very much, in supporting what my noble friend said previously, that we shall get the Bill through this morning.
Lord Manton: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made the surprising remark—even more surprising because he and I sat on that very board together for at least three years—that I was a Tote monopolist. I do not know where he got that suggestion from. I have never made any public statement saying I was a Tote monopolist and I can only think the noble Lord has fallen into the age-old trap that used to happen in Southampton Row, and apparently could even happen in your Lordships' House, of confusing me with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
12.3 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: It might be helpful if I were to comment briefly at this stage. I wish at the outset to thank the Committee for the general support that has been given to the Bill, and I understand that noble Lords are intending to continue that support. I thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for his valuable contribution and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, well enough to take part in our debates and I know that a lot of what he says is derived from great experience of racing, and I assure him I appreciate that.
I must, however, ask the Committee to stick to the two main points of the Bill, and as I explained those fully on Second Reading, when I spoke for about a quarter of an hour, I do not think I need weary your Lordships again this morning with that aspect. I will, however, give a brief reminder that because of the Levy Board cash flow problem, it is the wish and the desire of the Bill's promoters in the other place and of the House of Commons in general that the practice adopted by 65 per cent. of bookmakers already voluntarily—in that they pay their dues, so to speak,
832
in advance; I have already explained the procedure by which they do that—should be put on the statute book and made standard practice, and to deal with the question of legal avoidance, a matter which I also explained in my Second Reading speech. I do not think I need go into those matters again.
However, I must also emphasise the point my noble friends Lord Sandys and Lord Manton and others have made; namely, that we have a problem over the Bill in that time is extremely short. I was very much hoping a year ago, as the Committee may be aware, to introduce a Bill into your Lordships' House, which would have then gone to the Commons, and perhaps we should have had a little more time for discussion here. I am assured that there is only one more day for Private Members' Bills in the Commons. There is an important and long Bill which is likely to come up before this one and therefore there is a genuine prospect of this Bill running out of time should it be amended by your Lordships. I am sorry about that, but that is a fact.
There will be other opportunties for introducing amendments along the lines of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others, possibly in Government legislation which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandys. Of course, there is nothing to stop a Private Member from bringing in a further Bill if he so wishes. I do not want to see the main points of this Bill jeopardised or put in danger; it would endanger a lot of things which the racing authorities are trying to do if we were, so to speak, to tamper with the main proposals in the Bill.
There is also the point that if we should lose the Bill the racing industry would suffer. There would be an increased clamour for a change in the whole system; the levy system might have to be abandoned and we might even have to reconsider the question of the Tote monopoly. Therefore, in the bookmaking interests as well, we should leave the Bill as it is. Some attractive suggestions have been made today. For example, the question of the chairman of the Horserace Advisory Council being a member of the Levy Board statutorily is probably a good one, but the Horserace Advisory Council is quite a young body and it would be as well to let it settle down before putting that sort of proposal into a Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will see fit to withdraw the amendment in view of what I and other noble Lords have said.
Lord Wigg: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, a question. In paragraph 995 of the report of the Royal Commission it says that the Levy Board and Jockey Club made a joint submission that there should be a levy of £22 million at 1976 prices, which is £40 million at current prices, yet we have the Chancellor saying, "No more; it is dangerously high". Do the noble Lord and his supporters support that Jockey Club statement that there should be a levy of £22 million at 1976 prices, which is £40 million at current prices? If he supports it, would he tell us how to get it? I would assure the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that I was always an advocate of giving more money; of course, there should be more research, but does she not see that if

833
one has a policy of ever-increasing prize money and loans to Jockey Club courses free of interest, then, one has no more money for anything else? It is because I believe that what she says is right that she should vote with us today. However, my main purpose in intervening is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, whether he supports that £22 million idea, £40 million at current prices, and if so, how would he get it?
Lord Crawshaw: I would certainly support as much resources as possible being made available for racing. I know perfectly well—
Lord Wigg: This is the evidence of the Royal Commission; it is what they say.
Lord Crawshaw: As I say, I certainly support what resources can be made available because I know perfectly well what could be used by the racing industry, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, himself mentioned Aintree. That is a perfect example of where greater resources could be used.
Lord Wigg: The point is that there is no choice between either an amended levy system or no levy, which is what the Treasury want. Let us therefore get quite clear what we are doing. We are torpedoeing the present system—the effects of it cannot be denied—so please, those who oppose the noble Lord, Lord Peart, do not let the tears roll down their cheeks when the last Grand National is run and when it is said, "No more Derby". You will have done it. I put the choice before you and it is your choice.
Lord Peart: We have had an interesting and long debate on the amendment and I think we should now come to a conclusion on it.
12.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents 71.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Byers, L.

Mersey, V.

Clancarty, E.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pargiter, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gosford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hale, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Wigg, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

834

NOT-CONTENTS

Allendale, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alport, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Manton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Margadale, L.

Belper, L.

Marley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Pender, L.

Cromartie, E.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Devonshire, D.

Shannon, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Sharples, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Soames, L.

Effingham, E.

Spens, L.

Exeter, M.

Stamp, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Terrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Halifax, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Vestey, L.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Kilmany, L.

Westbury, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Peart Lord Peart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("the Bookmakers' Committee and").
The noble Lord said: In view of the outcome of the vote, I do not propose to move my remaining amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I understand that Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 are not to be moved.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Bill
12.18 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move

835
that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule [Amendments relating to enforcement of control]:
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 47, at end insert—
("(2) In section 89(4) and (5) of that Act for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and myself. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, with the exception of Amendment No. 4, which is simply a drafting amendment, are all concerned with fulfilling the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Bellwin gave on Second Reading, that the fines would be increased to present-day values in order to make them fully effective. I shall therefore move them one by one, and briefly explain what they do.
The first amendment, on page 8 at line 47, has the effect of increasing from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum of each daily penalty now specified in subsections (4) and (5) of Section 89 of the 1971 Act; that is, the master Act. The effect of this amendment is to increase the maximum daily penalty which is available on summary conviction for an offence involving, respectively, failure to secure compliance with the requirements of an enforcement notice and permitting a use to continue when it is in breach of the requirements of an enforcement notice, because in both cases there will already have been a prior conviction for the same offence before the magistrates' court. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am very happy to support this series of amendments, to which I put my name; and as I understand the Government are going to accept them I am even more pleased, because they are amendments for which I was pressing at Second Reading. I think they now make the fines more realistic. I have one minor reservation. I am only sorry that they are not going to be updated to reflect the substantial inflation which is taking place and which I pointed out on Second Reading; but I gather there is a problem in the Home Office in that respect which is concerned with all the fines.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. In fact, it is very much to her credit that these amendments are down at all. The only fears that my noble friend and I had were that we might have difficulties when the amendments go back to another place and we might be in danger of losing the Bill. But as it is quite clear that there is general support all round, these amendments will now be made and then they will be brought into
836
effect. So we have every reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I say very briefly indeed that the amendments have support from these Benches, and I hope the matter will go through to a very rapid conclusion.
The Earl of Avon: I should just like to say that, of course, the Government entirely agree with these amendments, and were very happy to make them after the noble Baroness made her intervention at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Bellwin is unable to be here today, but I know that otherwise he would say how much he appreciates the suggestions of the noble Baroness at Second Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 6, after ("omitted") insert—
("(aa) in subsection (7), for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100";").
The noble Lord said: This second amendment has the effect of increasing from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in subsection (7), as amended, of the 1971 Act, which provides for a penalty on summary conviction for an offence involving the continuing contravention of the requirements of a stop notice served by the planning authority under subsection (1) of Section 90 of the 1971 Act. In this case also the offence is a continuing offence in respect of which there will already have been a prior conviction which of course carries a maximum penalty of £1,000 on summary conviction. So the increase from £50 to £100 is reasonably in proportion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("(2) In section 93(5) of that Act (penalty for reinstating or restoring buildings or works demolished or altered in compliance with an enforcement notice) for the words "£400" there shall be substituted the words "£1,000".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which stands in the names of the noble Baroness and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to increase from £400 to £1,000 the amount of the maximum penalty specified in subsection (5) of Section 93 of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for an offence involving the reinstatement or restoration of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered in compliance with the requirements of an enforcement notice. The effect of this amendment, therefore, as I say, is to increase the maximum penalty for this offence so that it is the same amount, £1,000, as other comparable penalties in the 1971 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 7, after ("the") insert ("listed building").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting

837
amendment, to insert the words "listed building" after "the" in line 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 40, at end insert—
("9A. In section 98(4) of that Act (penalty for failure to secure compliance with listed building enforcement notice) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to increase from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in subsection (4) of Section 98 of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for a continuing failure to secure compliance with the requirements of a listed building enforcement notice. In this case, also, this is a penalty for a continuing offence, and there will of course have been a previous conviction for the substantive offence, for which there is a penalty of £1,000. So this increase in the daily rate is again in proportion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("Trees
10A.—(1) In section 103 of that Act (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders) in subsection (3) (appeals to the Secretary of State) the words from "and the provisions" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(3A) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(3B) The notice shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based.

(3C) On any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3D) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the notice under subsection (1) of this section shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.

(3E) On the determination of an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the notice under subsection (1) of this section or for varying its terms.

(3F) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice under subsection (1) of this section or give directions for varying its terms if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority.".

(3) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "enforcement notice", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which refers to trees. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new paragraph, paragraph 10A, in the schedule to the Bill which has the effect of amending Section 103 of the 1971 Act, dealing with the enforcement of a local planning authority's powers
838
to require the replanting of a tree or trees. The amendment repeals the concluding provisions of subsection (3) of Section 103 of the 1971 Act from the words "and the provisions" to the end of that subsection, and substitutes for them six new subsections, numbered (3A) to (3F), as set out on the Marshalled List, which correspond to similar provisions for enforcement appeals in Sections 88 and 88A in the 1971 Act, which are being amended by provisions in paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
These new subsections numbered (3A) to (3F)—and may I here explain that this strange structure of (3A) to (3F) is what the parliamentary draftsman advises is essential; I am bound to confess that I do not understand why, but there it is—specify how an appeal is to be made to the Secretary of State against a notice requireing the replanting of a tree or trees; what procedures the Secretary of State must follow in dealing with any such appeal; that the requirements of the notice are to be suspended until the appeal is finally determined or is withdrawn; and what additional powers of correction or variation of the notice are available to the Secretary of State when he is determining such an appeal. All these provisions are exactly comparable to the parallel provisions for the Secretary of State to deal with enforcement appeals which are being amended by this Bill, and it is clearly sensible that these two sets of appeal provisions should be the same.
Sub-paragraph (3) of this new paragraph 10A makes a minor drafting amendment to subsection (5) of Section 103 of the 1971 Act so that it refers to the copy of an enforcement notice which has been served by the local planning authority instead of the notice itself. I apologise for the complexity of this amendment. The noble Baroness is really a professional in these matters, and I am sure she will understand it; but the purpose is simple even if the form is complicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: This amendment is one which I very much welcome as, again, it was something which I pressed for on Second Reading. I feel particularly strongly about this subject because we have suffered such a loss of trees in this country that anything that will strengthen tree preservation, protection and replacement is really of great importance. There is just one point I should like to put to the noble Earl the Minister. I understand that the whole areas of tree preservation, protection and replacement is under review by the two local authority associations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils. I hope that he can today give us some indication that the Government will respond positively when the associations come forward with proposals for improvement. If he is unable to do so, perhaps he will write to me. I am pleased that the Government are going to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: On behalf of the Committee, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for his explanation of this amendment and to say that the Government will accept it. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the department is as interested in trees as she is, and while I cannot give an assurance that we will respond totally favourably

839
until we see what the councils produce, I can assure her that the matter will be looked at carefully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("Waste land
10B. The following section shall be substituted for section 104 of that Act:—
"Penalties for non-compliance with notice as to waste; land.
104.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a notice has been served under section 65 of this Act.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take any steps required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(3) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the owner of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the owner, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who then became the owner brought before the court in the proceedings.
(4) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the occupier of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person who then became the occupier brought before the court in the proceedings.
(5) If—

(a) a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) fo this section as the occupier of the land, has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier; and

(b) nobody then became the occupier,

he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who is the owner at the date of the notice brought before the court in the proceedings.
(6) If, after it has been proved that any steps required by the notice under section 65 of this Act have not been taken within the period allowed for compliance with that notice, the original defendant proves that the failure to take those steps was attributable, in whole or in part, to the default of a person specified in a notice under this section—

(a) that person may be convicted of the offence; and

(b) the original defendant shall be acquitted of the offence if he further proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the notice.

(7) If, after a person has been convicted under the preceding provisions of this section, he does not as soon as practicable do everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 for each day following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled.
(8) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with a notice is a reference
840
to the period specified in the notice for compliance with it or to such extended period as the local planning authority who served the notice may allow for compliance with it."
10C. The words "who served the notice in question under section 65 of this Act" shall be added at the end of section 106 of that Act (appeal to Crown Court).
10D. In section 107 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by notice as to waste land) the words "who served the notice" shall be inserted after the words "the local planning authority"—

(a) in both places where they occur in subsection (1); and

(b) in subsection (2).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This refers to waste land and will give the local authorities more effective power to preserve amenities by combating unsightliness when it occurs. The provision in Section 65 of the 1971 Act enables local authorities to serve notices on the owner and occupier of neglected or unsightly land requiring proper maintenance. Noble Lords will be aware of the difficulty of making this particular law effective. In the event, Section 104(2) of the 1971 Act which deals with the penalty of non-compliance with these notices has proved ineffective because it can only operate if some positive action is taken to continue or aggravate the existing situation. This is the point. Non-compliance with an order does not of itself attract the penalty. The proposed amendment removes this deficiency by providing that non-compliance by itself constitutes an offence and by creating a second offence in the event of failure to comply with a notice of conviction. It is a rather complicated clause which provides that where the property changes hands or the occupiers change it will be possible still to pursue the matter effectively and get a remedy. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support this amendment which, again, I was asking for on Second Reading. At this point—and I am afraid that I omitted to do so earlier—I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for explaining it all so carefully that I have not had to spend any time in explanation. This is an extremely important amendment because, for some extraordinary reason—I do not think anyone knows why it happened—this was left out in the original Act of 1971. As the noble Lord explained, in order to be able to bring any enforcement to bear on the commission of an offence, a second offence had to be committed—which was not only ludicrous but highly destructive of the environment. This is an important amendment and I am delighted to understand that the Government are going to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("10E. In section 109(2) of that Act (penalties for contravention of advertisement control regulations)—

(a) for the words "£100" there shall be substituted the words "£200"; and

(b) for the words "£5" there shall be substituted the words "£20".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to advertisements. It is one of the amendments which really went with the first group referring to the increase

841
of penalties to a realistic level. The effect of the amendment will be to increase the maximum amount specified in Section 109(2) of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for an offence involving contravention of regulations which control the display of outdoor advertisements; namely, the Town and Country Planning Act 1969. The present maximum penalties in Section 109 of the 1971 Act are £100 for the offence and £5 for the daily offence. These maxima are now quite out of line, particularly in relation to the income which is usually obtained from unlawful outdoor advertising. The amendment therefore raises them to the more realistic level of £200 for the main offence and £20 for the continuing daily offence; so that they will have a more effective deterrent influence on people who help themselves to this kind of advertising.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert—
("20A. In Schedule 9 to that Act (determination of certain appeals by person appointed by Secretary of State) in paragraph 2 (which relates to the powers and duties of the person determining an appeal—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) in paragraph (b), for the words "subsections (4) to (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 88A and section 88B(1) and (2) of this Act".

(ii) in paragraph (d), for the words "subsections (4) and (5) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 97A(1) to (4) of this Act"; and

(iii) in paragraph (e), for the words "sections 88(4) and (5) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3E) and (3F) of that section; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) for the words "88(2)" there shall be substituted the words "88(7)"; and

(ii) for the words "97(2)" there shall be substituted the words "97(6), 103(3C)".").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new paragraph is to make some minor consequential amendments which were overlooked when the Bill was being drafted. The purpose of Schedule 9 to the 1971 Act is to specify the powers and duties of inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to determine certain planning and enforcement appeals which are made in the first instance to the Secretary of State himself. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 of the 1971 Act therefore gives to the inspector who will determine one of these appeals the same powers as the Secretary of State has under Part V of the 1971 Act.
Since some of the Secretary of State's powers—for example, to determine enforcement appeals—are being amended by this Bill, it is appropriate to ensure that an inspector's powers will correspond in future to the new powers given to the Secretary of State. That is the effect of this group of amendments. I do not propose to go into further detail, but if noble Lords want any further explanation I shall be pleased to give it. It is fairly complicated and could run to considerable length; but the purpose is quite straightforward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 34, after (""issued"") insert—
("(bb) paragraph 30 is repealed;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. The "paragraph 30" referred to which is to be repealed in Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 reads:
"The local planning authority who may appeal to the Crown Court under section 106…shall be the authority who serve the notice in question under section 65 or, if the notice was served by the Secretary of State, the authority named in the notice".
This definitional paragraph was necessary at the time as a result of the split powers between the county and the district councils. Now that that split is done away with, it is no longer necessary. The purpose of the amendment is to remove it from the statute book. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the schedule, as amended, shall be the schedule to the Bill?
12.38 p.m.
Baroness Birk: There is one outstanding point which has not been covered by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. This is the point regarding mineral enforcement. During the Second Reading (Hansard, 1st June, column 1096) I referred to the problems caused by the fact that a mineral operator can very profitably carry out the extraction of minerals without planning permission and in defiance of an enforcement notice, for some considerable time. The two associations which represent all the mineral planning authorities—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils—I confess could not understand why the Government dropped the proposal contained in the original version of the Bill which would have dealt with this problem.
Following further discussion between the associations and departmental officials, I understand that the reason for it not being in the Bill together with the omission of provisions originally in the Local Government (No. 1) Bill is that it is felt there were too few cases to justify changes in legislation and that, anyway, the proposed change, the way it was originally drafted in the Local Government (No. 1) Bill, could have been got round by the operators.
I appreciate the argument that the law should not normally be changed for a relatively uncommon problem—depending of course upon the problem—but when this difficulty arises, however, it is a major one in the particular locality in which it occurs and one about which local people can feel strongly. Obviously, there is no point in incorporating an amendment which operators could readily get round, and it would of course mean a new amendment. It would also mean, as has been pointed out, that there would be a risk that the whole Bill may be lost if something were introduced at this stage. This is why I have not put down an amendment and do not intend to put down an amendment at Report stage.
I should like a clear indication from the Government that if, as I have said, an amendment is not pressed to this legislation, when there are appeals against enforcement notices on mineral working they will be

843
given top priority so that operators in this case—I do not think there will be too many of them—can gain little or no financial benefit from breaching planning control.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend replies, I support the noble Baroness in her view. This is a very complex and difficult field in which to legislate. But on the ground there are cases—not many—where the unscrupulous operator does do things that he ought not to do and it causes serious offence locally. It is most desirable that there should be effective action taken. Clearly, in a private Bill of this kind there would be an obvious danger, when it went back to the other place, of the industry interests feeling that they had not been sufficiently consulted on what is a very sensitive area for them. Most of the operators are responsible and co-operative. It is only the odd one that is a "cowboy" and does this kind of thing.
I can imagine that if this provision had been put in this Bill then one voice in the other place saying "object" could lose the whole Bill. Therefore, this kind of provision has to be in a Government Bill. I hope that next time the Government are legislating in this field they will cover it. So much of what we have been talking about seems so technical but on the ground it is enormously important.
We were talking about the provision of waste land earlier. This is something near to my heart. The preservation of the green belt round London is a continuous battle both on the inside and on the outside, and one of the first steps trying to break the planning control by an owner of land who hopes to transform its value from say £1,500 an acre to £1½ million an acre when developed is to neglect it and allow it to become a bed of weeds and brambles which is an offence to everybody, so that it will support an application to put some buildings on it.
Therefore it is most important that local authorities should have an effective weapon to deal with it straight away. They have not had that up to now. These complex technicalities we discuss here have tremendous practical implications. The support of the noble Baroness in this field is very much appreciated. If I may give my personal support to Lady Birk's plea to my noble friend that this point should be remembered in the DoE when legislation next comes along, I should be happy to leave it at that.
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I add my support to the remarks made by the noble Baroness? I agree that the problem is not a frequent one or one that the vast majority of operators indulge in; but the occasional maverick in certain areas, particularly the North of England—and, I am sure, in other parts of the country—can do a very great deal of damage. It is particularly important, both in this field and in the field of waste land, that we remember the debates during the Local Government Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and myself were very anxious about the problems relating from changes in the derelict land grant applications. The whole of the subject of waste land, minerals and derelict land is one of great importance.
844
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give assurances that the Government have this very much in mind. It is a very serious matter in some parts of the country on some occasions.
12.45 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: Following the remarks on this issue, minerals enforcement appeals, which the noble Baroness made on Second Reading of this Bill, I know that my noble friend carefully reviewed the matter in consultation with ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment. He came to the conclusion that the case in favour of making this amendment was not as convincing as he had originally thought.
The origin of the proposal that there should be a separate enforcement régime for planning control over the winning and working of minerals is to be found in one of the recommendations in Chapter 11 of the report of the Stevens Committee on minerals planning control, in February 1976. But, when one examines that particular recommendation, it is clear that the Committee based virtually their whole case for a separate minerals enforcement régime on the apparent reluctance of planning authorities to serve stop notices for unlawful minerals development. In the Committee's view, this reluctance to serve a stop notice was due to the risk of a planning authority having to pay compensation for wrongfully stopping development; but they made the mistake of founding their whole argument on the time it had taken for one mineral enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to pass through all the stages of determination, including the Court of Appeal. We should not expect anything like this to happen again: indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment takes particular care to ensure that any enforcement appeal, which involves an associated stop notice, is dealt with at all stages as a matter of the first priority because he realises that the amount of any compensation payable if the appeal is successful may be increased as a result of delay in dealing with the appeal.
Moreover, the results of an analysis of minerals enforcement appeals which the Department of the Environment have recently carried out show that, in the great majority of minerals enforcement appeals dealt with in the past eight years, the enforcement notice has been upheld by the Secretary of State, so that there was no risk of compensation to be paid by the planning authority if they had also issued a stop notice.
Finally, there is the point (which was also mentioned by the noble Baroness) that a mineral operator could, in practice, circumvent the removal of the "ground (a)" appeal by securing a refusal of a planning application and making a minerals planning appeal to the Secretary of State. Having said this, the Government recognise the noble Lady's concern joined by my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that there should be effective enforcement of minerals planning control; and I know that my noble friend is concerned to ensure that his Department's procedures for dealing with minerals enforcement appeals seek to avoid putting planning authorities at risk of increased compensation for a stop notice in the unwelcome circumstances where an appeal

845
succeeds on legal grounds. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will be able to accept these assurances on behalf of my noble friend on this point. The Government join in wishing this Local Government Planning (Amendment) Bill a swift journey through the House and will continue to give it their full support.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Contempt of Court Bill [H.L.]
  Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.
  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.