Lords Sitting of 14 May 1982

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR 011 the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

The Falkland Islands: Public Comment
Earl Alexander of Tunis: 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 public comments on the Falklands crisis which obviously give succour to the enemy can be deemed treasonable and what action they intend to take.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the constitutional position is as follows. It is for the courts and not for Her Majesty's Government to decide what conduct is capable of constituting a criminal offence and in what circumstances. So far as the institution of prosecutions on behalf of the Crown is concerned, it is for the Attorney-General, acting in his independent capacity as legal adviser to the Crown and not as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, to institute any necessary proceedings.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the so-called "balanced reporting" in the media is totally out of place in the circumstances? Would he not agree that we should give more moral support to our task force in their attempt to relieve the Falkland Islands?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is correct in saying that every possible moral support ought to be given to our task force, but I was asked a question of law and I answered it, I hope, in appropriate terms.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble and learned Lord has just said, may I ask whether a charge of "treason" is not absurd to the point of hysteria, especially when the BBC, and the ITV for that matter, are demonstrating to the world what a free country is really about? If the balance appears wrong occasionally, is that not due mainly to the sparse and limited information coming from the Ministry of Defence, compared with the flood of misleading and self-righteous propaganda cascading from the controlled and repressed media in Buenos Aires? Is there a prospect of improvement? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is able to comment on this. Also, could the reports coming from the Ministry of Defence be a little less funereal and a little more inspiring? It seems at the moment that all that is needed is a harp accompaniment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are many parts of that supplementary question with which I find myself in sympathy, but I think I must confine myself to answering questions of law.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform your Lordships whether, under the law of the United Kingdom and bearing in mind the realities of this sad situation, there is not now a state of war with the Argentine?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I am right in saying—that is rather a fast ball, if I may so describe it—that whether or not a state of war exists is a question of public international law. Her Majesty's Government, on such matters, are advised by the Foreign Office and, so far as I know, they have not received positive advice in that direction.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will bear in mind that we are not fighting a colonial war to capture an island in the South Atlantic? We are fighting for freedom and democracy, and freedom includes freedom of speech. Will the noble and learned Lord also bear in mind that if Parliament were to attempt to make the latter treasonable we should be embarking upon a course of great danger and one which might betray our cause?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what Parliament does is for Parliament to say, but I must tell the House that it is treason to kill the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, am I not right in recollecting that it also carries, in addition to the penalty of death, that of disembowelling?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, without notice, I am not sure that I could answer that question, but I have some reason to believe that in recent cases such a course has not actually been insisted upon.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I agree with him absolutely on his comments regarding the task force? What I find difficult is that if there is a possibility, as the noble and learned Lord said, of the officials who have this responsibility to examine statements, would he advise that perhaps the next Question on the Order Paper ought not to be asked?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, without my spectacles, I am afraid I have not read the next Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not undesirable that parliamentary immunity should be used to intimidate broadcasters, with the result that Mr. Robert Kee has felt it necessary to recant in The Times this morning, thereby letting down his colleagues? Is it not the case that we ought to be rather careful that we do not move into the sort of society which we are opposing?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I recollect a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, last week in which he accused the Government of murder. I think he should be very glad of parliamentary immunity and the tolerance which is extended to him.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this Question, to some of us—particularly since we are sending the Welsh Guards down to this part of the world, with relatives in Patagonia and perhaps even with some of the Falkland Islands and without having declared war—is absolutely absurd? If a Welsh Guardsman drops a love letter to a girlfriend in Patagonia, what kind of position is he going to be in?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Embarrassing, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that is a private matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with respect, I think that on that happy note it might be appropriate to move on to the next Question.

HMS "Sheffield" and Sea Wolf Missile
11.12 a.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any truth in the press and broadcasting allegations that the Ministry of Defence could have authorised the fitting of the Sea Wolf missile to HMS "Sheffield".
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I am aware of the recent radio and press reports. The facts of the matter are that, while consideration was given over 10 years ago and again some five years ago to fitting Sea Wolf to Type 42 destroyers, it was never incorporated in the design because it was found to be impracticable to fit both the Sea Wolf and the Sea Dart systems on the same Type 42 ship. The Sea Wolf system is deployed with the task force on the Type 22 frigates.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does the same apply to the new Sea Wolf system with the lightweight tracker radar?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it has so far been judged that it will remain impracticable to fit Sea Wolf with the new lightweight tracker radar to the Type 42s, in addition to Sea Dart. It is also true that, even if the lightweight tracker radar had been ordered the
416
day the Royal Navy decided that it could meet the specification, it would still not have been in service for several years yet.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are we not embarking on rather dangerous ground in these questions affecting military security and military secrets? Is this an appropriate course that is being followed by the noble Lord who has asked the Question?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, there is nothing in the questions or in my answers which in any way impairs the secrecy which the Government regard as paramount in relation to the task force.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I come back to the question of security. Surely the BBC broadcast of the "Today" programme at 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on 11th May contained a whole lot of facts, many of which were erroneous, and the whole statement was laced with innuendoes which would sow distrust of the Government's policy and mistrust of its missile policy. Is it not desirable that, for the comfort of those who are concerned in the task force and their relations at home, we should make it clear at the earliest possible moment how inaccurate this statement was?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, what I regret in relation to my noble friend's supplementary question is that no effort was made by the BBC to check with us the several-times-over inaccurate inferences of these BBC peak-time comments. Neither, yet, has the BBC used the MoD statement which, after careful consideration in relation to security, was released to the press and to the BBC on 12th May. I am putting copies of that statement in the Library of the House.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that his meeting with the all-party Defence Select Committee was, in fact, a previously arranged long investigation into the general policy of procurement, and was not specifically designed, as implied by the BBC in that broadcast, to discuss the Sea Wolf missile?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I can confirm that, and the House of Commons Defence Select Committee have confirmed that situation in public, also.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the need for accurate reporting at this time, could the noble Viscount say what consultations take place between his department and the BBC and ITV on these matters to which he has referred, so that the reports put over by the BBC and ITV can be as accurate as possible?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, there was no method by which the Ministry of Defence could have known that the BBC news bulletin on the morning of the 11th was going to have a statement with, as I have tried to explain, inaccuracies some four times over, and with implications which are good neither for the morale of the forces in the task force, nor, let it be said, for the widows of the gallant men who died on HMS "Sheffield". Had we been consulted, had we

417
been told of any intention to run this item, we would have supplied the facts that I have now supplied to the House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Viscount has not answered my question in full. I was asking what regular consultations take place. If they do not take place, would it not be useful for such consultations to take place between representatives of the noble Viscount's department and of the media?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, in normal times, pretty regular contacts take place between the information department of the Ministry and all the relevant people in the media, including the BBC. At the moment, with the emergency on, special arrangements exist and one would have thought that those special arrangements, or the telephone, would have been used before putting out that statement with the inferences concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what are the special arrangements?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, if the noble Lord would walk round to the Ministry of Defence, he would see that that great room downstairs is permanently laid out as a, more or less, permanent press conference. Representatives of the media, the independent channels and the BBC, are almost constantly there and Mr. McDonald, whom the noble Lord mentioned just now, is from time to time and as soon as he can, bearing in mind the priorities which exist for using signal channels for operational reasons, giving to the media full information that is compatible with security. The contact is in both directions hourly at the moment. The point, however, is that on this particular news bulletin at a peak time a programme was put out which had certain obvious inferences that HMS "Sheffield" could have been saved.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the noble Viscount implying that the BBC were deliberately misleading or that they were misleading through ignorance? If the latter is the case, is it not incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence adequately to brief the information services so that they do not make misleading statements?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, statements had been made regarding the loss of the "Sheffield". There was no way in which the Ministry could have foreseen that inferences—inaccurate four times over—were likely to be made. As to the motives for making them, no, I do not accuse anyone of that motive, but I do take note that that sort of inference appears, in this day and age, in a free country to have more news value than the sometimes boring facts.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we appreciate his sincerity in answering some of these questions? On both sides of the House, envertheless, we realise that in this hostility which has not been declared a war brave men and women are losing their lives. We find it queer that, day in and day out, scores of English people in Buenos Aires
418
are talking to the world and that news is going both ways. When all this is over and we have paid tribute to the men who have died for this freedom, I hope that a deep inquiry will be made into the causes of this ramshackle affair which we are now involved in—ending with a preposition!
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's sentiments. We have heard it again declared that we are not at war, that we are in hostilities, that we have not got the arrangements which normally accompany war. We are also carrying out hostilities 8,000 miles away where communication is extremely difficult to arrange, whereas the international facilities available to the news media in Buenos Aires are infinitely greater. I should not like to give the noble Lord the impression that we are entirely happy about the way in which this is working, but we do have to put operations first. In this situation, we expect there to be a degree of cross-checking and responsible thought by the media before they come out with stories or allegations.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that ignorance of the facts is no defence whatever to being misleading, whether wittingly or unwittingly?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am not prepared to say anything further than I have already said. I have given the House the facts. I have pointed out that facts are sometimes more boring than inferences, suggestions or sensitive questions.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I think his criticisms of the BBC are absolutely justified in this particular case? That is on the one hand. On the other hand, is the noble Viscount further aware that the implications of the first question seem to be absolutely offensive and help no one? Does not there seem in this case to be room for getting together with the media in order to see whether or not some new guidelines can be devised?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that there will be considerable discussions. It is clear that the chairman of the BBC is himself deeply interested in this situation and, I suggest, deeply worried about the criticisms which have been made. I am sure that discussions will take place. I very much hope that, somehow, in a free country we can, without in any way curbing the right of free comment, make sure that unfortunate incidents like this do not occur.

Melbourne Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers
11.24 a.m.
Lord Beloff: 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 further steps they are taking to carry out paragraph 84

419
(on student mobility) of the Communiqué of the Melbourne Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers; and what is the composition and mandate of the inter-departmental committee advising the Government on this subject.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer, the reasons for which will become apparent.
We have welcomed the Commonwealth Secretary-General's initiative in taking steps to set up the Standing Committee on Student Mobility and we look forward to co-operating with it. The interdepartmental committee advising the Government on this subject within its general remit to monitor the consequences of the decision to withdraw the subsidy from overseas students' fees consists of officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, the Department of Education and Science, the Treasury, the Department of Trade, the Department of Industry, the Home Office and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that useful and informative Answer, may I ask him whether he does not consider that recent events have shown the importance to this country of close connection with countries of the Commonwealth? May I further ask him whether or not he is aware that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade have stressed the importance that they attach to a flow of students from Commonwealth countries to these shores? In conclusion, may I ask him whether or not it might be thought that a more sensible way of limiting any excess supply could be found than the blanket and, on the whole, offensive method of discriminatory fees which the Treasury has forced upon the other departments concerned?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend on his first point that, as recent experience has shown, a close connection with the Commonwealth has proved valuable. However, I do not share his criticism of the Treasury. The Treasury is far from being an ogre. They have a difficult job to do in difficult economic circumstances. Recent statistics have shown that we, led by them, are winning the battle against inflation. It has become almost my theme song over the last few weeks that when our economic fortunes have improved sufficiently we shall review with sympathy reductions in budget estimates which we have made since coming into office.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would not the Government agree that some very influential Commonwealth Governments whose interests have been adversely affected by the recent huge rises in the fees payable by their students here are particularly keen on the initiative which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? And, in any case, is it not highly desirable that at a moment when these Governments are giving us such spendid assistance in connection with the Argentine aggression we should lean over backwards in order to give them as much satisfaction as we possibly can?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answering my noble friend's first point, I did say that I agree that close connection with Commonwealth countries is necessary and desirable and has proved its value over the last few months. However, I would stick by the second part of my answer to his supplementary, that all this is dependent upon economic circumstances—as, indeed, is borne out when I tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we have increased the funds available for awards made under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan to £5 million in 1981–82 compared with £3·8 million in 1980–81. We do have the interests of the student at heart.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that if he agrees—as we all agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, then he should at least be prepared to examine the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Those of us who have been involved with the British Commonwealth both in this place and for many a decade in the other place know full well that the faceless moguls in the Treasury play an important part. Much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said I can substantiate with evidence, running over at least a decade and a half, which could be provided to the noble Lord. It is about time, I believe, that we gave our full support to the proposition, in honour of the way in which the British Commonwealth has stood by us in times of stress.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord—and it will be apparent when he reads my Answer in the Official Report—that the Treasury is a very small part of the inter-departmental committee. I do not expect them to have undue influence.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it is completely unfair to attack civil servants in this House and that the responsibility for Government decisions always rests on Ministers?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, which is why, in replying to the particular line of questioning which is being pursued in your Lordships' House at the moment, I am answering for the Government as a whole.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making statements over the past 14 days emphasising the size of the contingency fund and its ability to meet all demands he can foresee being made upon it? Would it not be better, in the circumstances outlined by his noble friend Lord Beloff, to consider some transfer—perhaps only a minor one—from the contingency fund, for this purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I will certainly bring the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. However, I would point out that the contingency fund is for emergencies, generally speaking, and not for long standing problems.

Cyprus: Ministerial Talks
11.31 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the outcome of the recent London talks on Cyprus with the Foreign Minister of Cyprus; and what agreement has been reached on payment for the sovereign bases.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the talks were warm and friendly and covered a wide range of subjects. There was detailed discussion of the Cyrpus Government's claim for aid and a number of ideas were discussed. There is no question of payment for the sovereign base areas, which are sovereign British territory.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in view of the urgent necessity for the authority of the United Nations to be upheld at the present time, are the Government aware that there is growing disillusionment and cynicism in Cyprus, having regard to the fact that these talks have been dragging on since 1974 and that resolutions passed by the United Nations since 1974 requesting the withdrawal of foreign troops from the island have been ignored? Will the Government not take an opportunity at the next meeting of the General Assembly to try to get some movement into this very sad, complicated and difficult matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has held this view for some considerable time. I seem to recall that when she and I last discussed this particular subject she asked me whether I was aware that there was never an appropriate moment for the final solution of this problem—so I know exactly her background thinking. However, the problems are very real and we still stick by the facts we have made plain: that when we have a United Nations seeking, with the full authority of all the countries belonging to the United Nations, to do the right thing, it would be counter-productive to take unilateral action cutting across what the United Nations seeks to do.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the British sovereign bases are of considerable value to the economy of Cyprus? Would he further agree that the sovereign base of Dikhelia is the one part of Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can meet on a day-to-day basis and that this must be of great benefit to both communities in the longer term?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when talking about this particular problem, I must say that I find the subject of sovereign base areas something of a red herring. Sovereign base areas are sovereign British territory, as I said in my original Answer. We have no intention of giving them up. Nor have the Cyprus Government ever suggested that they wish us to do
422
so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, over the cultural value of the sovereign base areas.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although talks have been continuing for years, it is true, there is a special obligation on Her Majesty's Government over this matter of Cyprus? I myself had the opportunity of signing the treaty in which we undertook to preserve the previous constitution of Cyprus, and is it not entirely unsatisfactory that our Government should remain inactive, exercising no influence and taking no initiative in a matter in which we have a primary responsibility?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord on the first part of his question, because we are, of course, one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus under the Cyprus Agreement. But I cannot agree that we are taking no action in this matter. Britain has met all the obligations placed upon her and we are—as the noble Lord, with his great experience of the subject, will know—the largest contributors of both men and money to the United Nations' peacekeeping force in Cyprus, at a cost of some £20 million a year.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
11.36 a.m.
Further considered on Report.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Interest on debts and damages
.—(1) The section set out in Part I of Schedule (Interest on debts and damages—Northern Ireland) to the Act shall be inserted after section 33 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.
(2) The Article set out in Part II of that Schedule shall be inserted after Article 45 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.
(3) The enactments specified in Part III of that Schedule shall have effect subject to the amendments there specified being amendments consequential on subsections (1) and (2) above.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment and the new schedule to which it refers is to do for Northern Ireland what Part II of Schedule 1 does for England and Wales—that is to say, it enlarges the powers of the High Court and county court to make awards of interest on debts and damages. As we have discussed this matter under the English and Welsh umbrella, perhaps I need not enlarge on the subject. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is clearly desirable that Northern Ireland should be kept in line on this matter and I approve of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Interest on damages—disregard for income tax purposes
. In section 375A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (interest on damages for personal injuries or death not income for income tax purposes)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the words from "an order "to"1937" there shall be substituted the

423
words "a provision to which this paragraph applies"; and

(b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

"(1A) The provisions to which subsection (1)(a) of this section applies are—

(a) section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934;

(b) section 17 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937;

(c) section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981;

(d) section 97A of the County Courts Act 1959;

(e) section 33A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978; and

(f) Article 45A of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.".")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Amendment No. 28 be agreed to. The purpose of this amendment is to expand the tax concession regarding interest on damages for personal injury awards so that it applies to injury awards made under the new provisions of Clause 15 and the new Clause 62A relating to Northern Ireland. It is done by inserting a new subsection into Section 375A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. I believe the House will agree that the exemption should be expanded so as to cover awards of interest under Clause 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 68 [Commencement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 38, line 11, at end insert—
("(fa) section [Interest on debts and damages];")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I speak to both Amendment No. 29 and Amendment No. 30 as I rise to move Amendment No. 29. These amendments tie in with the Northern Ireland provisions regarding awards of interest, and their purpose is to make the provisions subject to a commencement order to be made by the Lord Chancellor. Clause 68, as your Lordships will know, is the commencement clause and subsection (2) lists the various provisions which are to be brought into operation by commencement orders made by the Lord Chancellor. The interest provisions for England and Wales are included in subsection (2) and are identified in subsection (2)(b) as Part III. The purpose of the first amendment is to give the new Northern Ireland provisions on interest, which are to be inserted as a new clause coming after Clause 62, the same treatment. A reference to the new clause is to be inserted into line 11.
The second amendment relates to the repeal of Section 17 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937. This section contains the existing power of the High Court and county courts to award interest on debts and damages, which is now entirely superseded by the new provisions and may therefore be repealed. However, since the new provisions are to be made subject to a commencement order—this is the purpose of the first two amendments I am speaking to—the repeal of the existing law needs likewise to be made subject to a commencement order. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I make a brief comment that these two amendments add to the argument in
424
favour of the next amendment on the Marshalled List because they add to the complexity of Clause 68?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 38, line 14, at end insert—
("(ii) to section 17 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 68 and insert—
(" Commencement
68. This Act shall come into operation on 1st October 1982.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31, the purpose and effect of which is to leave out Clause 68, which is one and a half pages long, and to insert the words:
"This Act shall come into operation on 1st October 1982."
This, of course, is the date on which the new law year next begins. I do hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will feel a measure of gratitude towards me for moving this amendment, for, if it were accepted, or something like it, it would shorten the Bill and make it less controversial; it would make it more acceptable, more popular and more certain in its effect.
Under Clause 68 as it stands we are to have a complex triple system. The Bill will be brought into operation partly by a series of appointed day orders. Those appointed day orders are made either by the Lord Chancellor or by a Secretary of State or by both the Lord Chancellor and a Secretary of State. The provisions will be brought into effect partly—that is, under subsections (9) and (10)—three months after the Bill is passed and receives Royal Assent.
It is well known that the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society, who published a paper on this, and other users of statutes find it very inconvenient when they have to consider whether and when a number of appointed day orders have been made and with what effect and from what date. That is not good enough. The law ought to be certain not only in its meaning and effect but also as to the date when it comes into force. But there has over the years—something like, I would have said, 20 years—been a growing practice of having clauses like Clause 68, and it is, as I say, a practice which is deplored by the users of statutes. May I say in passing that there is nothing wrong with the drafting of Clause 68; it is the substance and the method which I suggest are wrong.
I concede the point which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will no doubt make, that time will be needed to complete some administrative arrangements resulting from changes in the law, but I suggest that it would be better to fix a date for the whole of the Bill to come into force instead of doing it piecemeal. If 1st October is too soon to enable the really not very considerable administrative arrangements and not very lengthy rules of court to be made, I would ask my noble and learned friend to fix another date—perhaps 1st November or 1st January. But of course it would be nice to have 1st October, because

425
it would enable us to celebrate the start of a new judicial year in that way.
There is another alternative, if my amendment is not found acceptable to my noble and learned friend, and it would be an improvement. That is to leave subsections (9) and (10) as they are but to say that the rest of the Bill—that is to say, those clauses or sections not mentioned in subsections (9) and (10)—shall come into force six months after Royal Assent. One wonders why if it is right to have three months under Clause 68(11) it would be wrong to have six months for other subsections.
There is a further and even less happy feature of this matter, and that is that there have been cases—and the Lord Chancellor, I have no doubt, is familiar with some of them—where appointed day orders have not been made at all; the law has not been brought into effect, not only after a very long time, but one case has been brought to my notice where the legislation has not been brought into effect at all, after many years, and thereby, of course, the intention of Parliament is frustrated.
Therefore, I do hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will show his usual concern and tell us that he will get rid of Clause 68 in its present cumbrous form and consider one or other of the alternatives, either the one in my amendment or others which have mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should like to express very briefly my support for this amendment. The growing practice of enactment clauses of this complexity which are brought in by statutory instrument does, present a lot of problems to all users of statutes, whether they be lawyers or other persons. It is a practice which is becoming increasingly undesirable, and for that reason and for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I support his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the interest of my noble friend Lord Renton in the statute law is well known, and I think a subject of universal admiration, because there is no doubt that there are very many things wrong with the statute book. Many of the arguments which he presented in support of this particular amendment were of a general character, and it may be that I shall give him a little comfort about them. But some of them which are of a general character do not really tie in with this particular amendment, and I can give him less comfort in relation to them.
There have been as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has reminded us, a number of moves in the past two or three years, by the Law Society, the Holborn Law Society and the Statute Law Society, to persuade the Government that commencement provisions should be simpler and demonstrate a greater awareness of the needs of the public and, of course, the practitioner. I have a good deal of sympathy with these representations. So far the Government have not gone very far to meet all the wishes of these representative bodies. Nevertheless, they have adopted some changes in the form of commencement orders—for instance, orders now describe in an explanatory note the effect of earlier commencement orders made in relation to the same Act—and I can tell my noble friend and the noble
426
Lord, Lord Hacking, that Ministers are currently considering some further suggestions including the proposal that, wherever possible, statutes should not come into force until six weeks after Royal Assent in order to avoid difficulties created by printing delays. I hope that that will give the noble Lord some measure of encouragement.
I turn now to Clause 68 which is the actual subject of the amendment. The complexity of that clause reflects the nature of this particular Bill. Most Bills are concerned with a single set of proporals and it is then possible to adopt a more or less coherent scheme for their commencement. But this Bill, as I have had to explain in different contexts previously, is quite different. While it is true that Parts I to IV are concerned with the implementation of law reform proposals, the rest of the Bill, I must confess, is a heterogeneous collection of individual proposals and a wide variety of considerations affect the commencement dates of particular provisions. There is, for instance, a small group of clauses which come into operation on Royal Assent and that is because no administrative arrangements are required for their implementation and they are not of immediate concern to practitioners at all—for example, Clause 58 deals with temporary vacancies in the Law Commission.
Many of the substantive law reform proposals can properly come into operation as soon as practicable after Royal Assent, because no rules or administrative arrangements are required. All that is necessary is that practitioners and the public should have reasonable notice of the commencement date and with that I agree. These, for instance, include Clauses 1 to 5 which are concerned with damages; Clauses 17 to 22 which deal with the making of a will, the revocation of a will and the interpretation of wills; and Clause 68(11) provides for all those provisions to come into operation three months from Royal Assent. I must tell my noble friend that it really is not possible to predict with complete certainty when the date of Royal Assent will be. But I think that that would have met the substantive point which he was making.
There are, on the other hand, many provisions which will require extensive administrative arrangements for the making of rules, and it is quite impossible to provide in advance for a realistic commencement date, or I would have done so. These provisions are set out, for instance, in Clause 68 (2), (4) and (6). It is necessary to have three different lists because the Lord Chancellor alone is responsible for some of the provisions, while he shares responsibility with the Secretary of State for Scotland for others, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is, of course, solely responsible for those parts of the Bill which relate only to Scotland.
I frankly admit that, in relation to this particular Bill, the commencement provisions are more elaborate than I would have wished, but they do involve so many different proposals affecting the three different parts of the United Kingdom, in different respects and in various degrees, and with the best will in the world it would be quite impossible to have a fixed commencement date in this case for the whole Bill. Moreover, some of the provisions are dependent upon rules being drafted and made; others will need new administrative arrangements which cannot immediately be

427
brought into being. I shall assure my noble friend that each provision has been carefully considered with an eye to the appropriate commencement arrangements and the inevitable result has been a somewhat complex commencement clause.
I shall, however, promise my noble friend that if he will withdraw the amendment, I shall ask the parliamentary draftsman once again whether he is in a position to simplify what is admittedly an overelaborate clause from the point of view of ideal draftsmanship. With that assurance I trust that my noble friend will not find it necessary to press the amendment, for the discussion, in relation to which I am grateful.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene for a moment. I do not expect my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to give an answer immediately. However, I should like to put to him a point which I have found to be of particular difficulty for practitioners when dealing with commencement orders on a Bill which is, as he himself has said, of a heterogeneous nature. The matter relates to the title of the commencement order. What happens in the Printed Paper Office here is that there is kept a consecutive pile of statutory instruments as they come out in the course of the year—and a very large pile it is—and at the same time there is kept an index and each of the statutory instruments is catalogued according to the initial letter of its title. However, in most legal libraries the only current list of statutory instruments is an individual copy kept in consecutive order as the statutory instrument comes out. So whichever system one uses one is entirely dependent upon the heading at the top of the statutory instrument. My noble and learned friend will appreciate, I think, if he looks at precedents of this nature that, if one is looking for Commencement Order No. 3 or No. 4, whatever it may be, one can be almost certain that the only thing it will not say at the top is, "Administration of Justice". It will be indexed and it will be headed by reference to the county courts, or mental health, or attachment of earnings, or solicitors or whatever it may be. It really does make it absolutely impossible for a practitioner looking through a colossal pile of current statutory instruments which have not been sorted out or indexed at all, because it is very difficult to find out which heading one is looking for. One thumbs through the pile and as often as not one misses it.
If there could he some reference in the heading to the original Act under which the commencement order is made with, if necessary, a sub-heading dealing with the title, then at least there would be some clue and I think that would be of assistance. I do not expect an answer now, but I point this out as a practical matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only say—and that only by leave of the House—that I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I will try to take the matter on hoard and see what can be done. I cannot, as he apprehended, give him any kind of an answer, but it is obviously a point of importance and I shall take it on board.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this an exceptionally heterogeneous Bill, to use the noble Lord's adjective, and I well understand from a little experience previously on this kind of measure the difficulties that are faced. But we note that the noble and learned Lord will invite the draftsman to have another look at it. I do not readily see how it can be improved, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a determined protagonist for clarity and simplicity in this field. Whether he will succeed on this one, I doubt very much.
Lord Renton. My Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I wonder whether I may be allowed first to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the explanation of the reasons for the clause as it stands, and thank him even more for the undertaking which he has given to consider the matter further. I would also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking for their support.
With the leave of the House I should like to make two brief comments. The first is that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very wisely introduced the problem of printing, to which my noble friend Lord Colville also referred. Very often there are such printing delays, not only in the publication of statutory instruments containing commencement orders, but in the printing of Bills themselves, that people simply do not know where they stand and cannot find out where they stand. So that is one reason why I greatly welcome my noble and learned friend's undertaking. With deep respect, may I say to him that I think this is a matter much more for officials of his department and for those who have to exercise the rule-making power than for the parliamentary draftsman. Quite clearly, he will require fresh instructions, and I think that that was implied in what my noble and learned friend said.
In view of what my noble and learned friend said, I agree that the particular form of my amendment is too tough, too stringent, and that it is too soon. But I very much hope that, perhaps at Third Reading, my noble and learned friend may be able to put forward an alternative which overcomes the complexity but which enables the administrative arrrangements, such as they are, to be completed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Extent]:
12.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 39, line 28, leave out ("and 58") and insert ("58 and [Interest on damages—disregard for income tax purposes]").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can move this amendment very shortly. Its purpose is to provide that the changes made in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 by the new Clause 66A apply to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Interest on debts and damages]:
12.2 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 41, line 10, after ("simple") insert ("or compound").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name. With the leave of the House, I intend to address my comments to all four of the amendments that have been tabled in my name; that is Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36. The subject of compound interest on this sunny summer morning is perhaps not the most riveting of topics, but I hope to persuade the House that it has some importance.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced these proposed measures at Second Reading on 8th March, he said that he was seeking to remedy what he regarded as a serious injustice. That injustice is that, under the present provisions, which are contained in Section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, there is no power in the court to award interest except on a judgment sum. So, if a debtor pays at any time before judgment, the creditor is deprived of any award of interest from the court.
My concern is that these proposed measures still limit the powers of a court, so that if they are not amended, some injustice will remain. I speak entirely as a lawyer in private practice. It is right to say that, although I have no personal interest in this, I am concerned, as with other lawyers—particularly in commercial work—with clients who will be affected both ways by the proposed amendment before your Lordships.
I think that a sensible starting point is to look at the principle. Perhaps I may enunciate it, and then turn to the words of Mr.Justice Forbes in a recent case. I believe that the principle is this: that a creditor who is a plaintiff in court proceedings should be compensated for the loss of the use of the moneys which have been wrongfully withheld from him; that is, he is compensated for loss to him of having to borrow money elsewhere in the market.
The High Court recently heard the case of Tate and Lyle Food and Distribution Limited v. Greater London Council. Mr. Justice Forbes was the presiding judge in that case and he put the principle, which I respectfully adopt, in this way:
"I think the principle now recognised is that it is all part of the attempt to achieve restitutio in integrum. One looks, therefore, not at the profit which the defendant wrongfully made out of the money he withheld (this would indeed involve a scrutiny of the defendant's financial position) but at the cost to the plaintiff of being deprived of the money that he should have had. I feel satisfied that in commercial cases the interest is intended to reflect the rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to supply the place of that which was withheld".
Although Members of this House—indeed, any member of the public—may wish to borrow money at simple interest, the plain fact is that money can only be borrowed from banks or elsewhere in the financial market at compound interest, and usually from the major clearing banks at three-month rest periods.
Thus the Bill as drafted will not enable the courts to compensate a plaintiff for his real loss. It also provides—and I consider this to be a further matter of importance
430
—an incentive to a debtor to delay paying his debt for the cost would be greater for him to borrow money in the market at compound interest than submit himself to a judgment which would only attract, in the present state of the Bill, an award at simple interest.
I seek only to give power in the High Court and in the County Court for discretionary awards of interest. But my serious concern rests with the bigger commercial cases, where the difference between awards at simple interest and compound interest can be quite large. I did calculate this out, with the help of one of the librarians of your Lordships' House, in order to give an example of the difference between an award at simple interest and at compound interest. The figure I took was a debt of £500,000 which has been due for three years by the time the matter comes before the court. In other words, it has been outstanding for three years. I set a 13 per cent. interest rate and for the purpose of making the compound interest calculation, I set a three months' rest period.
Under compound interest the plaintiff in this case that I have instanced would be entitled to an award of compound interest of £734,000, while at simple interest over exactly the same three year period, he would only be entitled to an award of £695,000: a difference of £39,000. I suggest that this example which I have given to your Lordships is by no means exaggerated. Indeed, I suggest without being able to do the full research, there are many cases before arbitrators and before the commercial court in which there are far larger sums of money which in interest awards would give a far greater difference between an award of interest at simple interest rates or at compound interest rates.
It is quite true that the Law Commission recommended against compound interest both in its proposed statutory scheme, which has not been adopted by the Government, and in the exercise of the court's discretionary power, which is the subject-matter of this schedule before your Lordships. But this House is not bound by the Law Commissions recommendations. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord has not put before the House the proposed statutory scheme that the Law Commission recommended.
It is also right to record that the Law Commission stated that views were expressed both ways concerning this discretionary power and whether that discretionary power should include the power to award compound interest. I refer to paragraph 153 of the Law Commission's Report.
Next, the Law Commission's report gave no reason for the recommendation against compound interest, except to state that the case "for change" had "not been made out". Having read the report, I confess that the Law Commission's view appears to have been coloured by their wish to keep discretionary interest awards in line with interest awards under their proposed scheme which, as I have already indicated, has been rejected.
In considering their statutory scheme they of course made the point about the great complexity of involving compound interest in a national interest award scheme. But that is not the case here. To calculate compound interest is the everyday business of banks and other creditors in the financial markets, so to give power here to the courts is not creating any great complications.

431
What it is doing is seeking to compensate the plaintiff for the real loss of being deprived of his money.
I do not want to over-emphasise this, but I believe that this amendment also has certain international overtones. The commercial court currently has well over 50 per cent. of parties before it who come from overseas and this House has played an important role in recent years in encouraging international arbitrations to come to London. So this matter also falls in the field of international arbitration for it gives the power to arbitrators to follow the same principles of compensating a plaintiff for his real loss. I would ask your Lordships to consider this amendment, and to consider this amendment in the light of the fact that many years may go by again before we have another opportunity to get the interest provisions right. Section 3 of the Law Reform Act has been with us for nearly 50 years with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has described as a "serious injustice" in its terms.
Finally, I should like to mention I recognise that there are of course administrative consequences of making provisions for compound or simple interest, because those awards have to be assessed and somebody has to assess them. On default summonses, for example, the Masters in the High Court assess interest awards, and it is certainly not my intention to have the Masters' corridor crowded with plaintiffs in default summonses seeking assessments of compound interest. I have given this problem some thought. I believe it can be dealt with simply. The terms of the proposed provisions incorporate Rules of Court, and I suggest that the Rules of Court can provide for a set scale of interest for default judgments. Indeed, already there are to be found, for example, in Order 13, Rule 1, interest rates set out in the White Book at 5 per cent. from the date of the writ to the date of entering judgments.
My concern is that there should be the power given to the court in the major commercial cases to award compound interest and, as I have said several times, properly to compensate plaintiffs for their loss. I suggest that such worries as the Lord Chancellor may have about pressures on the Masters for the assessment of statutory interest, whether it be at compound or simple interest rates, can be met by providing set scales of interest. Plaintiffs can then choose whether to go ahead and apply for interest at a set scale (involving no assessment by the Master) or, in appropriate cases, go for a full assessment, and a full assessment including an assessment of compound interest. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the absence of any other participant, perhaps I had better reply to the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. As he candidly conceded, this matter was carefully considered by the Law Commission when they made their proposals. They in fact came down in favour of simple interest against compound interest. I am bound to tell the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches that that corresponds with my own judgment.
There is of course one case at least where compulsory compound interest may be awarded, and that is where there is a breach of fiduciary duty. That was
432
decided only in 1975. The traditional approach of the courts against making debtors pay interest at all has moved slowly and with caution over my professional lifetime, I think wisely, in spite of the advance which the Bill now makes which was only one of two proposed by the Law Commission. I believe that to be right.
The research of the Law Commission suggests that there are absolutely no other countries in Europe where compound interest may be awarded at all. All European systems that have been examined are geared to simple interest only. I cannot help recalling to the House what my noble friend Lady Trumpington, on behalf of the consumer interests who would be the target for charges of this kind, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley when he tried to have a more onerous provision on the lines of the Law Commission's first proposal. I think that the consumer interests would in fact resist this particular claim on the part of the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches.
I could not help thinking as I listened to the noble Lord that his view is possibly rather coloured by the class of very large claims with which his own extremely lucrative practice is concerned. It was a good example to take the case of a debt of £500,000 outstanding for three years, but of course that is far removed from the county court, where there are 500,000 default judgments over a year. The sums of money are very much smaller. There are 70,000 judgments in the High Court. In the commercial court, where the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches practises with such skill, there are only about 50 cases a year tried. I do not think he has really fully appreciated the extra cost in time, and indeed in money, to the parties which anything like the acceptance of his proposal would give rise to.
Let us look at one or two of them. It would seldom be possible to identify any particular element in a plaintiff creditor's borrowing which was referable to a particular debt or a particular expense. The rates payable on his borrowing will vary from time to time by fractions of 1 per cent. The financial circumstances of the plaintiff will determine partly the rate on which he can borrow, and, secondly, his need to borrow at all. These will vary as a result of factors which have nothing whatever to do with the liability or behaviour of the defendant in not paying damages or debts.
Borrowing and the interest on it are beneficial to the plaintiff, in that he is able to set the expenses against his profits for tax purchases. How is that going to tie in with this? The noble Lord referred to the Tate and Lyle case. But the judge who tried it arrived at an award on the basis of averages and general assumptions rather than on the interest liability which was actually incurred by the plaintiff. He said in justification of this approach that, when making discretionary awards of interest, judges are entitled to, and do, adopt a very broad approach. I would respectfully agree, but a very broad approach in relation to matters of interest over and above what is incurred on the debt itself is not something which will necessarily commend itself to everybody.
Having given that answer to the noble Lord, I shall certainly think about it as the Bill plods its way through one House of Parliament or the other, but I do not

433
want the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches to have too much comfort that I am likely to change my preliminary view, which is not altogether enthusiastic in support of the amendment. I am sorry I cannot be more friendly to him than that, but I have given the matter some fairly close attention.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I share the doubt, if that is the right way of putting it, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as to whether we should make this change. I was particularly interested to learn that apparently no other countries in Europe provide for compound interest. I took careful note of that, in the light of the importance of international arbitration, the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in this field, and the fear that if we did not move in this direction the advance we have made in attracting more work into the field of international arbitration might be retarded if we did not make this move. I am not sure what the situation is in the United States; I apprehend that it may be the same as ours. In any event, I thought the note of caution struck by the noble and learned Lord in regard to the nature of consumer interest reaction was a wise note to have struck.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the careful consideration he is giving the matter and for saying that he will give it further consideration following this short debate. While it is my intention to seek to withdraw the amendment, I would state first that I, like anybody who is involved in the assessment of damages, in whatever field loss has been inflicted on the plaintiff, am much aware of all the complexities involved and how, at the end of the day, the trial judge (if it is a trial judge who is assessing the damages) has to take a broad view and give his award of damages on that broad view.
My concern is that, so far as interest is concerned, the learned judge in taking his broad view, should take into account the reality facing plaintiffs who are deprived of money; namely, that they have to borrow money at compound interest and not at simple interest. It is not my desire to make a trial judge's task more difficult. My only desire is that he should have the power to take into account all the factors which he should properly take into account in the assessment of damages, and that includes compound interest. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
12.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 41, line 44, leave out (" of this Act ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment, my Lords. Schedule 1 inserts a new section into the Supreme Court Act 1981. The purpose of the amendment is to match the drafting style of the new section with that of the rest of that Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 43, leave out lines 32 to 38.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is technical, my Lords. The provisions in Schedule 1 regarding the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 are no longer needed, since the same provisions are now part of Clause 66A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Attachment of debts]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 50, leave out lines 2 and 3.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 37B. Both are drafting amendments relevant to the identification of those deposit-taking institutions which should be entitled to deduct their administrative expenses from any deposit which may be attached in garnishee proceedings. The first amendment leaves the opening words of Section 40A (1)(b),
"any such institution of a prescribed description."
but removes the succeeding words,
"or with not less than a prescribed number of branches."
The difficulty created by the extra words is that they may prevent the Lord Chancellor from identifying a class of institutions by reference to the number of outlets other than branches; for instance, those building societies with no branches but with a great number of agencies. The difficulty is removed by removing the additional words. The second amendment is in exactly the same terms as the first and is directed at exactly the same point; it does for the county courts what the first does for the High Court.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37B:
Page 50, leave out lines 35 and 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Damages for personal injuries etc.—Northern Ireland]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 53, line 24, at end insert—
("(aa) any person who—

(i) was living with the deceased in the same household immediately before the date of the death; and

(ii) had been living with the deceased in the same household for at least two years before that date; and

(iii) was living during the whole of that period as the husband or wife of the deceased;").

The noble and learned Lord said: With permission, my Lords, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. These amendments introduce for Northern Ireland the same provisions relating to common law spouses as the amendments to Clause 3, which we discussed on a previous occasion, make for England and Wales. The dependants who may claim following a fatal accident will now include any person who was living with the deceased in the same household immediately before the death occurred, had been so living for at least two years and was living through the

435
whole of that period as the husband or wife of the deceased. In assessing damages, the court will be required to take into account the fact that the defendant had no enforceable right to financial support by the deceased.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I welcomed this on an earlier occasion and I welcome it again
now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 54, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) In paragraph (3), for the words "In assessing damages payable to a widow in respect of the death of her husband in an action under this Order" there shall be substituted the words "In an action under this Order where there fall to be assessed damages payable to a widow in respect of the death of her husband").
(2B) The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph—
"(3A) In an action under this Order where there fall to be assessed damages payable to a person who is a dependant by virtue of Article 2(2)(aa) in respect of the death of the person with whom the dependant was living as husband or wife there shall be taken into account the fact that the dependant had no enforceable right to financial support by the deceased as a result of their living together.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 40:
Insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
  INTEREST ON DEBTS AND DAMAGES—NORTHERN IRELAND
    PART I

      SECTION INSERTED IN JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1978
      Power of High Court to award interest on debts and damages.
      33A.—(1) Subject to rules of court, in proceedings (wheneve instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—

      (i) in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and

      (ii) in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.

      (2) Subject to rules of court, where—

      (a) there are proceedings (whenever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt; and

      (b) the defendant pays the whole debt to the plaintiff (other-wise than in pursuance of a judgment in the proceedings),

      the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment.
      (3) Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.
      (4) Without prejudice to the generality of section 55, rules of court may provide for a rate of interest by reference to a rate for which any other enactment provides.
      (5) Interest under this section may be calculated at different rates in respect of different periods.
      (6) In this section "plaintiff" means the person seeking the debt or damages and "defendant" means the person from whom the plaintiff seeks the debt or damages.
      436
      (7) Nothing in this section affects the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange.

  PART II

    ARTICLE INSERTED IN COUNTY COURTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980
    Interest on debts and damages
    45A.—(1) Subject to county court rules, in proceedings (whenever instituted) before a county court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as county court rules may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—
    (i) in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and
    (i) in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.
    (2) Subject to county court rules, where—

    (a) there are proceedings (whenever instituted) before a county court for the recovery of a debt; and

    (b) the defendant pays the whole debt to the plaintiff (other-wise than in pursuance of a judgment in the proceedings),

    the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest at such rate as the court thinks fit or as county court rules may provide on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment.
    (3) Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this Article for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.
    (4) Interest under this Article may be calculated at different rates in respect of different periods.
    (5) In this Article "plaintiff" means the person seeking the debt or damages and "defendant" means the person from whom the plaintiff seeks the debt or damage.
    (6) Nothing in this Article affects the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange.

  PART III

    AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION [Interest on debts and damages]
    Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (c. 44)
    1. In section 24(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 as it applies in Northern Ireland in relation to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and in relation to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland for the words from the beginning to "damages") there shall be substituted the words "Section 33A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and Article 45A of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (which respectively empower the High Court and county courts to award interest on debts and damages)".
    Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)
    2. In section 31(9)(c) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 for the words "section 17 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937 "there shall be substituted the words" Article 45A of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980".
    County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
    3. In Article 2(4) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 for the words from "the power" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Article 45A or of anything done under it".").
    The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this, again is, a Northern Irish amendment, a somewhat long one. The new schedule, together with the new Clause 62A, does for Northern Ireland what Clause 15 and Schedule 1 do for England and Wales; the combined effect is to give the High Court and the county courts in Northern Ireland the same enlarged powers to award interest on debts and damages.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 7 [Amendments of Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978]:
    The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
    Page 60, line 2, leave out ("out of money provided by Parliament").
    The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, my Lords. The words to be omitted are, I am advised, superfluous.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 8 [Repeals and revocations]:
    The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 42:
    Page 60, line 30, column 3, at end insert—
    ("Section 17.").
    The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this removes the existing powers to award interest on debts and damages, since they are replaced by the wider powers conferred on the High Court and county courts of Northern Ireland by the new Clause 62A and the new schedule.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Fish Producers' Organisations (Formation Grants) Scheme 1982
  12.28 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 1st April be approved.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a straightforward measure, the purpose of which is to provide specific authority, under domestic legislation, for the payments which Community regulations allow member states to make to recognised fish producers' organisations in their early years in order to encourage their formation and to facilitate their operation.
  Community regulations in the fisheries sector provide for fishermen coming together and setting up producer organisations with a view to achieving more orderly marketing of their landings. If producer organisations decide to adopt the Community's market support prices, they can quality for financial compensation from FEOGA, which is available only to fishermen who are members of producer organisations and not to those-who are not. This compensation is paid by the Community for fish which cannot be sold on the human consumption market at or above the appropriate Community withdrawal price and which has, in consequence, to be withdrawn from the market. The need to seek approval for the present measure arises from a change in the legal view on the authority for making these payments. Perhaps I should explain the situation.
  Community regulations, which have direct effect in United Kingdom law, can provide for two kinds of expenditure. Some regulations provide that certain payments must be made in certain circumstances; other regulations provide that member states may make certain payments. It is quite clear that, if an EEC regulation requires a payment to be made, Section 2(3)(a) of the European Communities Act 1972 applies to make it unnecessary to ask Parliament for powers to pay. In the early days of our membership of the
  438
  Community the view was taken that the 1972 Act covered both a requirement to pay and a discretion to pay when contained in an EEC regulation. However, more recent legal advice, based on more experience of Community law, is that the Government should rest upon more specific parliamentary authority for making discretionary payments. Fisheries Ministers, therefore, felt bound to seek such powers from Parliament to put beyond any doubt their authority to make the payments to producer organisations, which have been provided for in the department's estimates.
  The Instrument has been made under the powers contained in Section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981, which allows the Fisheries Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants to fishermen. It is a straightforward expression of the principal criteria which are contained in the relevant Community regulations which govern the calculation of the grant. It applies to the United Kingdom, and 50 per cent. of the payments which are made may be recovered from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
  It is the Government's view that well-organised and effective producers' organisations can play an important and beneficial role in the marketing of fish. Indeed successive Governments have encouraged their formation, and I am glad to say that there are now producers' organisations covering by far the largest part of our coastline. The order will provide for payments of formation grants to those organisations which have been recently formed and to those which may be formed in the future, and I commend the order for your Lordships' approval. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 1st April be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I thank the Minister of State for his explanation of the order, and I welcome the draft scheme, which will be of continuing help to the fishing industry. We appreciate also the backing of the EEC in respect of, I think, 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by member states being reimbursed by FEOGA. The fish producers' organisations play an important role in the national marketing of fisheries products and in the implementation of common marketing standards, and of course they need all the backing that can be given by Her Majesty's Government and by the Community.
  The Minister of State will be aware that the FPOs must be a viable entity within the terms of national legislation and must have—and I think this is important—"sufficient economic activity". Among other factors, there is the need to ensure a common fisheries policy which will give reasonable access to United Kingdom fishermen to fish in what we would call our own waters. As we know, the fishing industry has undergone great difficulties in recent years, due to the loss of distant fishing grounds, to having to share with the Community fish which is predominantly within the United Kingdom 200-mile limits, and to the inevitable restrictions of conservation.
  We rarely get the chance to debate this important industry in your Lordships' House, and while I do not wish to widen the scale of the debate on this occasion, should like the Minister to say, if he will—very

  439
  briefly, if possible—what is the state of play about getting a reasonable settlement of the common fisheries policy. Over the years when I had some responsibility for such matters in the other place, and in the period since then, negotiations have gone on, and I am sure that much help will come from the certainty that we shall have a reasonable settlement very soon. As the Minister of State will agree, the United Kingdom fishermen have the right to expect the chance to make what one might call a net return and indeed a net profit. With those few words, and one question, I support the order, and I know that it will be of great help to the industry.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for the welcome that he has given to this modest order. It is perfectly true that the fishing industry has gone through a very difficult period, and I am sure that the noble Lord will readily realise that during those difficulties, as well as during the economic difficulties which the whole world is going through, the Government have been the first to support fairly well, in fact very well, the fishing industry, and £42 million has been given in special aid over the last two years to the industry. That is a measure of our determination to see that the fishing industry will have a viable future in the changed circumstances in which it finds itself.
  The noble Lord referred to the common fisheries policy. He said, quite rightly, that he did not wish to debate this now, but he naturally expressed anxiety and asked what possibilities did one see for a common fisheries policy coming into operation in the future. It would be imprudent of me to forecast with any degree of accuracy any length of time over which a settlement might be expected, but I can tell the noble Lord that we hope to make further progress at the next council of fisheries Minsters. The date of the meeting has not been fixed, but it is likely to take place in early June, and it is expected that the Commission will then produce new proposals on access, total allowable catches, and quotas, and all these matters will be discussed. The noble Lord will understand that that is as far as I can go. The matters will be discussed; whether there will be agreement after the discussion, I cannot tell him, but I would hope so, as I know he would. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government remain determined to obtain a satisfactory revised common fisheries policy as soon as possible.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1982
  12.37 p.m.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the approval of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1982. I should start by saying that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has made no comment on it whatever. The order provides for the amend-
  440
  ment of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 to apply to hovercraft revised regulations relating to the carriage of dangerous goods by ships.
  I shall begin my main explanation by pointing out that the 1968 Hovercraft Act provides that hovercraft should be treated as vehicles in their own right, rather than as ships or aircraft, The Act does, however, recognise the important need to ensure that relevant safety rules are appropriately observed by hovercraft which operate in a marine environment. For that reason the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, made under the Act, applies to hovercraft a number of enactments and instruments relating to ships. These include provisions which relate to the carriage of dangerous goods.
  At the beginning of this year (1982) these regulations—the 1978 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules—were replaced by the 1981 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations. The 1981 regulations re-enact the 1978 rules, but they widen their application to take account of international agreements and to make new provisions for health and safety aspects in carrying dangerous goods on board ship. To provide that the revised regulations apply to United Kingdom-registered hovercraft and all other hovercraft operating within United Kingdom territorial waters, it is necessary to substitute the existing reference to the Dangerous Goods Rules in the 1972 Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order, through a change in Part B of Schedule 1 to the order.
  I should like to point out briefly that the dangerous goods regulations will have only limited effect on hovercraft operations. The major use of hovercraft in the United Kingdom is in the cross-Channel ferry service. Very little cargo is carried by hovercraft, and only on rare occasions will this be affected by the regulations. All the same, I am sure your Lordships will readily appreciate the need for this amendment to ensure that maritime safety regulations are applied to hovercraft engaged in maritime operations, and also that they relate fully to modern-day demands. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
  12.41 p.m.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining this order. I must say that in this case I have found the order itself singularly uninformative, without any explanation at all attached to it other than a very brief one. I am glad to know that this order has in fact been approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but one wonders what regulations in fact apply if the hovercraft are operating in a non-marine environment. Do similar regulations apply, or not? One also wonders what steps are being taken to ensure that operators comply with the regulations now being laid before Parliament.
  I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for issuing certificates for hovercraft, and one wonders whether they should not also be responsible for issuing certificates with regard to the carrying of dangerous cargoes. Indeed, one wonders whether, as hovercraft operate generally in a marine environment, it would not be more sensible and more cost-effective

  441
  for the responsibility for construction and maintenance, as well as for operations, to reside with the Department of Trade. I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten your Lordships on these points.
  Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to express my deepest gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his traditionally warm welcome to the rather detailed measures that he and I seem to discuss at length. Indeed, any of your Lordships who have had the opportunity to study the 1968 Act together with the 1972 orders will have found a fascinating list of enactments which are apparently covered by the orders—enactments relating to diseases of animals, including equine diseases, and all sorts of foot and mouth orders. One finds marvellous lists of diseases which are of interest to the medical profession as well as to ourselves.
  The noble Lord had one particular query. The first of his questions concerned hovercraft which might be operating outside what we call the marine environment. By that (I think we must not be dragged into a legal definition) I would take it is meant over land entirely. My Lords, in what I would call the explanatory legislation following on the 1968 Act—both in the 1972 general order relating to hovercraft and in the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972—we find a little section headed "Application", and in both cases it says:
  "This order applies to hovercraft which are used—

  (i) wholly or partly on or over the sea or navigable waters; or

  (ii) on or over land to which the public have access or non-navigable waters to which the public have access; or

  (iii) elsewhere;

  for the carriage of passengers for reward".
  I am given to understand that the query which the noble Lord had about hovercraft operating entirely overland would be covered by sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2 of the section dealing with applications in both the 1972 orders, since it seems that the reference to hovercraft operating "over land to which the public have access" really would cover all the possibilities of dangerous goods causing damage or possible or prospective injury to any members of the public. If I have missed anything in my legal short-circuit, then indeed I shall write to the noble Lord on that point, but I am given to understand that paragraph 2 of the section designated "Application" in both orders covers the first point raised by the noble Lord.
  The noble Lord raised two more points concerning the Civil Aviation Authority and the relevance of my own department, the Department of Trade, to the operation of hovercraft. First of all, the Civil Aviation Authority is concerned with the safety of hovercraft in terms of their construction and performace, but what I would call the day-to-day operational requirements in the marine environment are a different matter, and they come tinder the aegis of a separate department.
  There is no clear-cut answer to the query that was raised by the noble Lord, because historically the construction of hovercraft developed from the aircraft industry in this country. Indeed, the Civil Aviation Authority has long-standing expertise over the whole field of, first of all, aircraft and aircraft construction, and (if I may so call it) this fascinating and, I hope, lucrative branch of the industry. But in practice the present arrangements seem to work efficiently, and we are not
  442
  aware in any way that the industry would welcome a change from the existing arrangements for certification. Above all, we do not think there is any reason to suppose that any change from the existing arrangements would provide any savings in the costs which the industry would have to bear.
  With that, I hope I have covered the query that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. If there is anything I have missed, then, of course, I shall write to him.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1982
  12.47 p.m.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th April be approved.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1982 be approved.
  The amending regulations, which are laid under powers contained in Section 87 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, provide for a number of changes to the fees scheme introduced last April. When speaking to the first set of regulations last year my noble friend Lord Bellwin indicated that we would be keeping the fees scheme under close review during its first year of operation. He undertook that, if changes proved to be necessary in the light of experience, we would be bringing forward amending proposals.
  Although our experience of the operation of the fees scheme is still limited, we have received a number of representations that the original regulations contained some unintentional unfairness and anomalies. We have also noticed that there are some small loopholes which could allow people to avoid fees in a way which would be contrary to the basic principles of the scheme. These amending regulations seek to respond to those representations and to close loopholes. They also provide for an across-the-board increase of 10 per cent. in the levels of all fees, with scale maxima going up pro rata.
  Given the relative novelty of the fees scheme, we have thought it right to confine changes this year to a number of relatively modest improvements. Fundamental revisions to what are a complex set of regulations would have been confusing both to local authorities and to applicants for planning permission, and would therefore run the risk of disruptive effects. We entirely accept, however, that the fees scheme is capable of further improvement; indeed, we recognise that there are a number of interest groups who still take the view that fees are unfair to them. For this reason, we propose during the course of this year to undertake more fundamental reviews of the whole operation of the fees scheme. To this end, we will be consulting interested parties in order to elicit their views, comments and suggestions. The aim will be to complete the review in time to bring forward further amending regulations to take effect in 1983–84.
  The regulations provide for a modest increase of 10 per cent. in the levels of all fees. Although it is very difficult indeed to estimate with precision the likely income yield, we expect that it would be about £28 million in a full year. Although there have been suggestions that, given the assumptions embodied in rate support grant, the increases ought to be much higher—perhaps over 50 per cent.—we did not think that increases of that magnitude could possibly be justified. It is important that the fees are pitched at levels which, first, are in broad proportion to the costs of processing applications, secondly, are fair between different sorts of application and, lastly, do not act as a deterrent to development. Substantial increases in fees would make it difficult to achieve those objectives.
  I understand that the local authority associations take the view that the likely shortfall in income as compared with the assumptions made in rate support grant will have the effect of penalising local authorities. Although uncertainties about income yield in both 1981–82 and 1982–83 make it impossible to say exactly what the shortfall might be—and it will be some time before we are in a position to do so—we shall monitor the position carefully and discuss with the associations the implications for local authority expenditure.
  My Lords, I turn now to the detailed changes to the structure of the fees regulations. These are of three sorts: the removal of anomalies; the closing of loopholes; and drafting amendments designed to clarify matters which have in practice proved to be a little ambiguous. In that category, there are three main changes. The amending regulations introduce an entirely new category for agricultural buildings. Its effect is to exempt from any fee those agricultural buildings of less than 465 square metres which require specific planning permission, and to discount for fees purposes the first 465 square metres of larger buildings. These changes, which are based on the agricultural provisions of the General Development Order amount to a very substantial concession to the agricultural community. They respond to representations that large hut relatively low cost agricultural buildings have been unfairly treated.
  The second change designed to remove an anomaly responds to the well-publicised case of "The Piggeries", the three vandalised tower blocks in Liverpool. The developer, who proposed to subdivide these three large blocks into smaller flats, found himself faced with a fee of over £6,000 that was clearly quite disproportionate to the amount of work involved in processing his application and was the result of the fact that the relevant fees category had no upper limit. It was certainly not our intention that the subdivision of dwellings should be caught in this way—and we were thinking in terms of the conversion of Victorian and Edwardian houses. We have therefore taken action to put an upper limit on this category of fee. At the same time, we are making some more technical changes in this category to ensure that the subdivision of warehouses and the like are treated in the same way as the subdivision of dwellinghouses.
  An anomaly in the other direction has turned out to be the treatment of waste disposal applications. At present, they attract a flat rate fee of £40. But it has become clear that controversial matters of this nature
  444
  can in practice involve a substantial amount of work for planning authorities. The third is an amending regulation which recognises this fact by providing that waste disposal applications should be treated in the same way as those for the extraction of minerals; that is, at a rate of £22 for each 0·1 hectare of the site area, subject to a maximum of £3,300. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that these changes accommodate points which were made last year by the Opposition.
  My Lords, those are three fairly substantial changes to the regulation. Others are of a more technical nature. Arrangements for charging for reserved matters are tightened up in the amending regulations, thus closing some loopholes. At present, it is possible to frame applications for outline permission in such a way as to include details of design and external appearance, thus ensuring that a subsequent detailed application attracts a low flat-rate fee. Design and external appearance normally involve local authorities in a fair amount of work, and hence costs, and it defeats one of the objectives of the fees scheme for this minor loophole to continue. We are therefore closing it. At the same time, we are extending the scope of the regulation dealing with reserved matters to cover appeals to the Secretary of State, and cases where land has been added to the site covered by the earlier application in order to provide better access. We are also tightening up the working of the regulations dealing with "free go" arrangements, under which one revised application is free of charge within 12 months.
  At this technical level, there are also two minor but useful improvements to the present arrangements for the payment of fees for the deemed planning application which arises from any enforcement appeal made to the Secretary of State. First, we cater for the situation where someone makes an enforcement appeal—and would normally be required to pay the appropriate fee for it—at a time when he is still waiting for the local planning authority's decision on an application for the development cited in the enforcement notice. In these circumstances, it is obviously unfair to have to pay two fees, so the amending regulations introduce exemption from the fee for the enforcement appeal.
  Second, we take account of a provision in the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act which has the power to quash an enforcement notice, or to dismiss an enforcement appeal in certain specified circumstances where procedural requirements are not carried out. When that happens there is no consideration of the deemed planning application and it is therefore entirely appropriate to refund any fee already paid. The amending regulations provide accordingly. The amending regulations also contain some reorganisation and amendment of the schedules as well as minor drafting amendments.
  My Lords, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we have not sought to make fundamental changes to the fees scheme, We have only limited experience of its operation, and major alterations, for example, in the incidence of fees, would not be justified at this stage. But we propose during the course of this year to look again at the scheme and its details as well as at the way in which it treats different sorts of development. To this end, the department will be seeking the views of interested parties. One issue we shall be examining with particular care is that of

  445
  minor modifications to existing planning permissions. A number of examples have come our way of local authorities insisting on a fresh application—and therefore another fee—for quite minor changes. It is certainly not our intention that people should be charged twice in this way. We shall also be looking at a number of other matters raised by the local authority associations, developers and others. I commend the regulations.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Avon.)
  12.58 p.m.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his lucid explanation of these regulations. We on this side of the House have always opposed fees, since we believe that planning is a community service which controls the use of land and buildings in the interests of the community and of other individuals; therefore it has always seemed wrong to us that individuals should pay directly rather than through the Government, be it central or local. These matters of principle were discussed during the passage of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act, and when we divided on this matter in this House a number of noble Lords opposite joined us in the Division Lobby. As this instrument has been passed already by the Commons I shall not seek to divide the House this afternoon.
  The revised planning fees regulations were supposed to be implemented by 1st June. If we must have these fees then it is imperative that they should operate from the beginning of the financial year; but, seven weeks on, these fees have not yet been agreed to and now we understand that they will not be implemented before 1st June. The absence of the revised regulations has led to great uncertainty in local government. That is what the local government associations feel strongly about. One of the points about which they feel strongly is that it has cost local government money, as the proposed increased fees will only come into effect two months into the financial year. When these revised regulations were discussed in another place I did not notice any explanation or apology for this delay. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can explain why the delay was necessary.
  My Lords, the detailed changes in the revised regulations are, by and large, welcome and non-controversial. A number of important loopholes have been blocked and I welcome the willingness of the Government to close these gaps. Also, a number of significant anomalies have been resolved. The Joint Minerals and Reclamation Group, recently set up by the three local authorities associations, have welcomed the increase in the level of fees for applications for the disposal of waste. Here the Government have shown themselves willing to respond to the well-documented and reasonable arguments for change which have been put forward by both the local authority associations which represent county councils in England and Wales.
  The Minister has told us that there has been an overall increase of 10 per cent. in the scale of fees and in the maximum fees payable under the regu
  446
  lations. Any increase in the level of fees must, in isolation, be a disappointment to those who are concerned to promote development and encourage growth during this very grave recession. If anything, 10 per cent. is too high. I know the local authority associations have no wish to be responsible for administering a scheme which involves a punitive level of fees which can only bring planning and local government into disrepute.
  The problem for local authorities is that most people do not recognise that in this case they act solely as agents for central Government, which sets the level of fees and, through the rate support grant, takes back from local government any money which is collected under these regulations. Local authorities wish to see planning fees kept at the absolute minimum, as the Government assert they also wish to do. If planning fees are to be kept at a reasonable level—and I know that there are many who will think they are already too high—then so must the sum deducted by central Government in the rate support grant. This is the nub of the argument and the distaste which has been expressed by the three local major authority associations.
  The evidence which we have seen was set out in detail by my colleagues in another place and shows clearly that central Government are taking back far more from local government than local government are collecting in fees. Obviously, there will be a margin for error in any calculations; but the local authorities calculate that, including this financial year, the likely loss of income as a result of excessive reductions in the rate support grant, which is supposed to cover planning and building regulations fees, will be in excess of £100 million. This is an enormous sum, and it is one which the Government have knowingly and even rather brazenly increased. Again, I see no real explanation or apology for this in the debate in another place on 11th May. The local authority associations have written to say that they view with considerable concern the Government's unwillingness to ensure that income from fees equals the amount deducted from the rate support grant. They accept that in any one year calculations can be slightly astray. However, the Government have in no way proved willing to remedy these mistakes in subsequent financial years.
  Therefore, there are a number of questions which the Government must answer and answer unequivocally. First, will the Government make good, subject to detailed agreement on the exact figure, the shortfall in income for the last financial year which was suffered by local government? The local authority associations estimate that figure at £17·1 million, and the Government have accepted that the loss is certainly no less than £12·1 million. Secondly, will the Government pledge themselves to set the level of rate support grant deductions as near to the estimated fee income for any one year as is possible? In this financial year, there seems to be agreement between the local authorities and central Government that the loss will be in excess of £10 million. Will the Government immediately make sure that that loss is wiped out by an appropriate adjustment in the rate support grant? Thirdly, will the Government assure the House that, if, as may well happen, fee income is substantially

  447
  less in any one year than the amount deducted from the rate support grant, the shortfall will be made good in the following year's rate support grant settlement?
  If the Government are unable to give these assurances, then we shall have to accept that they are using these regulations and the building fees regulations—where the loss will have been £72 million over three years—as a means of further penalising local government and reducing the amount of money which local government can spend. If that is their intention, and the planning fees and building regulations fees systems are to be a further tax upon local government, then they should say so. I hope that that is not so and that it is a matter of very grave maladjustment. To equivocate in answering these points would be to show a lack of political courage. It is important that we should know on what basis the Government are operating these fees regulations, and what they intend to do over this grave shortfall.
  In another place the Minister gave an undertaking—and the Minister here has reiterated this today—that discussions would take place on the implications of the estimated level of shortfall. Of course, I am not opposed to the idea of discussions, but these surely cannot take the place of making decisions on what are matters of principle. Those matters of principle must be decided by Parliament. The Government have known about these problems for some time now and have had plenty of time to come to a decision.
  We all know the implications of the level of shortfall in fees income. It is perfectly simple. It means that local authorities will have less money to spend on essential services to the community. I fail to see what further discussions can reveal unless they are to identify exactly which local authority services are being cut back and just what suffering is being caused to the most vulnerable members of our community. Perhaps if that is the remit of any such discussions this House will be interested to learn of their conclusions. This House does not need an assurance of further discussions—it needs clear answers to the questions that I have posed. The Government are trying to have the best, or more likely the worst, of both worlds, and it is at somebody else's expense. We on this side of the House have always opposed the idea of planning fees and we continue to oppose them.
  What we want to see now—and it is a matter of fact: they are in operation—is this tremendous financial gap closed. If it is not closed through the fees—and understandably, I agree, the Government do not want to increase them very much more—the deduction must be reduced. If the result of these discussions is a cease-fire in the attack of the Secretary of State on the rate support grant, that will at least be some comfort to us.
  1.8 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Baroness has already adverted to the fact that these regulations have already been approved in another place. I want to put on record my own objection and the objection of my party to the basic principle behind these regulations. It seems to us that the fee for planning application
  448
  schemes was originally, and is rapidly becoming more so, a crude and unjust system of taxation.
  As the noble Lord said in his introduction today, the Government are proposing to put up the fees by an average of 10 per cent., which he regarded as a modest figure. The truth is that it is tempting once a Government have embarked on this pathway to go further down; and of course a 10 per cent. increase every year will eventually lead to this becoming a very substantial form of taxation.
  The planning laws were surely intended to protect the community. They are of fairly recent origin in this country. Before that, an individual had the right to develop his own land in his own way. It was thought —and rightly—to be in the interests of the community to impose restrictions, but one of the criticisms made of our planning provisions is that they are essentially restrictive in character and not creative in character. That having been established as the basic principle, why should individuals be required to pay for that service which is essentially a community service? Why should people who are developing their own property—for example, to take the simplest one, adding a garage to a house which was not originally built with one—have to pay a tax on the application?
  Already this year the estimate was that this new form of taxation would relieve the Government by means of the rate deficiency rate by the sum of £38 million. In the event, it has proved that the estimate was wrong, or so the local government associations claim, and the sum realised has been £25 million. Therefore there is an alleged shortfall between the actual realisation and the estimate of about £13 million. It seems to me that the whole object is entirely wrong. First, it relieves the Government of providing a substantial sum by way of rate deficiency grant; secondly, it does so by imposing a tax on an application for planning development. The whole thing is wrong. It is wrong in principle and, as I see it, it is going to develop over the next few years into a substantial addition and, as I have said, a crude form of taxation. We are therefore completely opposed to it.
  As to the amending factors in the regulations, the fact that the Government are taking advantage of their limited experience in one area to, as it were, try to iron out anomalies and unfairness in the system, I have no comment to make, save that it seems to me that there are still many anomalies and difficulties, even with these revised regulations. I think that when the Government embarked on this path it was taking this country in a direction in which it ought not to have gone.
  1.12 p.m.
  Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said about the effect of these regulations and the fees on the local authority finances. The present situation is that the local authorities collect the charges and retain the income; then central Government make the adjustment through the total RSG to allow for the additional income the authorities have had. But, as the noble Baroness said, this has not worked out fairly in so far as the local authorities are concerned, and the reduction takes place before the income has been collected. It should be based on a best estimate of the income for the next year.

  449
  Although I am speaking from these Benches, I am speaking today as a vice-president of the Association of District Councils and I have been asked to associate with my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, president of the ADC, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, president of the Association of County Councils, neither of whom can be with us today. All three associations welcome the changes in the planning fees and also the detailed changes to elements within the scheme, and particularly the proposals put forward for more realistic charges for waste disposal. They are not opposed to the proposed 10 per cent. increase, but they are very concerned, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said, about the level of increase, if it is accepted that the RSG deduction must be reduced to cover the shortfall this year and last year. Until this reduction has been accepted by the Government, the new level of charges cannot really be acceptable entirely to the associations.
  In the last financial year the income received by the local authorities was £20 million and the deduction from their rate support grant was £37·1 million. That £17·1 million deficit is not being allowed for in this year's settlement, and the fee income this year, they anticipate, will be no more than £27·5 million. In spite of that, the rate support grant deduction is to be £38·8 million. That means, as other speakers have said, that in the last two years the local authorities have lost something over £28 million. This is an additional burden and it has been very quietly and insidiously placed on the shoulders of local authorities.
  Soon we are to receive the changes in building regulation fees. They are likely to come before us, I would guess, within the next month. The local authorities will have lost in grant something like £72 million in the first three years of the operation of the building regulation fees. If you take those together with the fees and grant under discussion this morning, it means that local authorities will have lost something like £100 million in grant in just three years. To make it even worse, the higher planning fees proposed in the regulations, as the noble Baroness has said, are going to come into operation at least two months into the financial year and the building regulation fees will be coming into operation three or four months later in the financial year. There is really no excuse for this sort of delay. I note that the regulations were printed and the date has been blacked out on them, and we have just been left with the year "1982". They have deliberately created a climate of uncertainty, instability and high costs for local authorities, and we need an assurance today that if this level of increase is accepted the rate support grant deduction will be reduced to cover the shortfall for this year and last year.
  I should like to leave one other point for consideration when the noble Lord and his department arc discussing this subject with the local authority associations. That refers to the position of districts which have a new town within their boundaries. Their situation is a little different, because they tend to deal with rather fewer individual planning applications since the development corporations put in the large development applications. Therefore these districts suffer not only from a reduction in the fees they might have received but from the fact that they still get "clobbered" for their share of the reduction in the
  450
  rate support grant. When the grant is reduced their expenditure allowance is also reduced, and this of itself could lead to penalties being imposed on those districts for being in excess of their GRDA. I hope the noble Lord will take this point on board and use it in his discussions with the association and that we shall learn that the Government are going to make good the shortfall in the rate support grant.
  1.18 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderney: My Lords, I have two comments and two questions for my noble friend. My first comment is a somewhat strange one, because I find myself thanking the Government for the concession they have made in this order on agricultural buildings. My noble friend will remember that the case for planning fee reduction was strongly argued in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Government. The fact that the Government have now accepted our argument is, in my opinion, a credit to the Government machine and its willingness to listen to reasonable argument. I hope my noble friend will accept this compliment and my gratitude in the spirit in which they are given, because I am sometimes not very polite about the Government machine.
  My other comment concerns the glasshouse industry, whose needs at the moment are great, owing to competition from the Dutch. In fact, although there appears to be a concession to agriculture, it does not in fact help the glasshouse industry, whose requirement per area is considerably bigger than in normal agriculture. Hence, although we do not now pay any planning fee until the area gets to 465 square metres, and after that it is £44 for every 75 square metres as opposed to 40 square metres, when it comes to the glasshouse industry, which is that much larger, it puts it at a disadvantage.
  We are therefore seeing a position where horticulture is being discriminated against vis-à-vis agriculture plain and simple. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that he will consult and think further about this matter. If, by chance, over the next year or so he revises his opinion, as he has over this past year in regard to agriculture, and if there is then a rebate or reduction, it should be able to be claimed in retrospect —because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, if that is not done you will get a halt in building. I am sure that is something we do not want at the moment, with the financial problems we are facing.
  My two questions are quite simple. First, would my noble friend confirm that if an agricultural building is eligible for capital grant the cost of the planning fee can be claimed as an expense for grant? Secondly—and I have to declare an interest here, because I am in one of these positions—can my noble friend say what is the position of a farmer who has applied and, by necessity, has had to pay the planning fee at the old rate, but has not yet either had planning permission from the council or started work? Can he go on to the new rate, rather than the old rate? I have a feeling that my noble friend may say that I am asking for icing on my cake, but I like icing on my cake, as I am sure other noble Lords do. Otherwise, I welcome the order.
  1.20 p.m.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to respond to some of the points which were made during the debate. Although I am sorry to see that some noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, are not yet reconciled to the principle of fees for planning applications, I hope that they will understand if I do not seek to traverse again that well-trodden ground. We discussed the principle at length during the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, and Section 87 of the legislation gives the Secretary of State the necessary enabling powers. I note, however, that there has been a general welcome for the detailed changes introduced by these amending regulations.
  Both noble Baronesses spoke about the late production of this paper. All I can say is that it concerns rather complex and difficult matters, which required careful consideration and, also, careful interpretation of the first year's figures which were not available until 1st April this year. The regulations were sent in draft form to the local authority associations on 19th April for onward transmission to their own members, so that we could discuss it as fully as possible. Some part of the delay came about because of the loophole which was spotted at the last moment. The associations told us informally that they would like action to close that loophole, which we have done.
  Noble Lords have made much of the shortfall likely in income from planning fees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned building fees. We are, of course, today concerned only with the former and building regulations will come later. It is an open secret that the levels of planning fees prescribed in the 1981 regulations are likely to fail to raise the £38 million or so which was intended. There are a number of reasons for the shortfall. First, a very large number of substantial planning applications were made in the quarter before the introduction of fees. Secondly, more applications than expected were of a kind which were exempt from fees; for example, those made as the result of an Article IV direction or in a conservation area. In addition, these factors were combined with the liberalising amendments to the general development order and a decline in the volume of planning applications.
  Although it is too early to be able to estimate with confidence the total income for 1981–82, we expect it to be in the range of £23 million to £25 million, but we cannot yet be certain. For 1982–83, the position is necessarily even more speculative. Since 1981–82 was clearly a very untypical year, we should be wary about seeking to extrapolate forward the likely income yield. But given these important caveats, it looks as though income in 1982–83 will be of the order of £27 million to £29 million, although the prospects are for a shortfall of income. For the reasons that I outlined in my opening remarks, we have thought it right to confine the overall increase in charges to 10 per cent.
  In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, we shall be considering the implications of this level of increases for local authority expenditure and, as I said, discussing the matter with the local authority associations. Of course, I cannot give answers until the
  452
  discussions have taken place. Otherwise, it would make the discussions themselves a waste of time.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley referred to the position of glasshouse developers and the horticultural industry. I should like to thank my noble friend for the kind remarks with which he prefaced his questions. It has been suggested that, even after the very substantial concession to agriculture of discounting for the purposes of calculating fees the first 465 square metres of those buildings which require specific planning permission, large glasshouse developments will be hit hard. Although I should observe that the levels of fees are related to the costs of processing planning applications, I should like to repeat today the assurances given in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Pudsey. It is that we will look again at the position of glasshouses in our more fundamental review of the fees scheme. I am afraid that I could not hold out any hope for retrospective legislation on that point.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, raised a point about new towns, and we will certainly make sure that that is kept in the forefront of our discussions. My noble friend Lord Stanley asked about eligibility of the planning fee. The answer to that is, Yes, and it is at the same percentage rate as the project itself. So that if a building gets a grant of 40 per cent., then 40 per cent. of the fee is also eligible for grant. He also asked whether a farmer who has already put in his planning application and paid a fee will be subject to the new or the old regulations. The answer, I am afraid, is that he will be subject to the old regulations. I am only sorry that my noble friend did not have more confidence in the Government and had waited until after 1st June. I have tried to cover the various points which were raised. If there is any point which I have not covered, I will of course write to the noble Lord concerned. My Lords, I commend these regulations.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say this? I am afraid that Hansard have whipped away my notes and I do not have a list of my questions. But I have a very strong feeling that the noble Earl has not answered all of my questions and I should be grateful if he would write to me, because it is obvious that he cannot go any further at this stage.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course I included the noble Baroness in my remarks, when I said that I would write to anyone whose questions I had not answered. I think that quite a lot of her questions were covered in my reply, but until we have discussed with the local authorities I cannot go any further.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
  1.27 p.m.
  Lord Darling of Hillsborough: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill. It was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member

  453
  for Tottenham, Mr. Norman Atkinson, who deserves our thanks for using his good fortune in the sectional ballot to introduce such a useful Bill. I am afraid that not all Private Member's Bills come up to this standard.
  The Bill has a somewhat limited but very important and necessary purpose. It is to provide stricter and more severe penalties for very serious offences that are set out in the Food and Drugs Act than can now be imposed. The stiffer financial penalties are obviously needed to catch up with the inflation that has gone on for the past 27 years. But while inflation on the scale that we now experience was not anticipated when the Act was introduced, neither did anyone at that time anticipate the development of the scandalous trading practices that have developed and that we now have to deal with.
  The worst of these trading operations are found in the meat trade, but I hasten to add that only a small minority of meat traders are involved. The vast majority, and the food manufacturers, are as honourable and as law-abiding as any other traders in the country, and certainly nothing that I have to say can be directed against them. But it is the operations of this small minority in trafficking in unfit meat that has greatly alarmed our public health authorities, and the experience of their enforcement officers in tracking down and prosecuting offenders has shown that this Act is defective. The penalties that can be imposed on proven dangerous criminals are woefully inadequate and completely fail to be anything like a deterrent. For example, somebody who, by devious means, gets hold of a diseased cow's carcase, dresses it up and somehow gets it into the trade to be sold as prime beef is, according to the Act, committing only a petty offence. As the Act now stands, he can be tried only in a magistrates' court, and the maximum penalty that can be imposed upon him is a £100 fine or three months in prison.
  The evidence we have from the environmental health officers shows that a great deal of meat which has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, or would have been condemned if the carcases had been under official scrutiny and not illegally slaughtered, is passing through the trade and is finally sold as good quality beef or good quality meat, or is manufactured and comes into the shops in pies, sausages and canned meat. The health officers estimate that at least two per cent. of all meats and meat products sold to the public is unfit for human consumption. Even if it is only two per cent., it is a lot of meat, and this widespread trade is a dangerous threat to public health.
  The Bill therefore has three objectives. First, it raises the maximum fine in cases tried in magistrates' courts to £1,000 instead of the present £100. Secondly, it provides for serious cases to be heard in the Crown courts where there will be no maximum fines and up to two years' imprisonment can be imposed. So it will be up to the enforcement authorities to decide, according to the seriousness of an offence, whether it should be treated summarily or on indictment. Thirdly, it extends the present time limit for an offence to be taken before the courts from six months to three years, or in certain circumstances to one year from the offence's being found out. This extension of the time limit for prosecutions is needed because the six months'
  454
  limit can easily be evaded—for example, by keeping unfit meat in cold store for six months.
  Many sickening cases of the trafficking in unfit meat were recounted during the proceedings on the Bill in another place. I do not intend to repeat them here, but it is clear from all the evidence from the environmental health officers that this illegal trade is widespread. We do not know the full extent because there is no national register of successful prosecutions. We have the same problem here which the Select Committee on Hazardous Wastes had, whose report was presented to your Lordships some time ago: that, with very few exceptions, prosecutions for the illegal dumping of toxic wastes were reported only in local and provincial newspapers. We had no national assessment of the extent of what was going on, but we were convinced, from the evidence that we had from the local enforcement officers, that this was a widespread and growing problem.
  I am equally convinced, again from the evidence of environmental health and trading standards officers, that this detestable trade in unfit carcases and condemned or illegally slaughtered meat is on a scale that few of us have ever contemplated. It is a highly profitable business. The people operating it somehow get hold of meat that ought to be destroyed, or is fit only perhaps for pet food, very cheaply. Eventually it is sold in the shops or sent off for manufacture at market prices. So the financial gains are enormous. The dressed up but dangerously unfit meat is usually very difficult to detect unless it comes under careful analysis, and equally difficult to trace so that it can be analysed.
  The cases that we know about were unearthed by painstaking detective work by local environmental officers whose dedicated service I think deserves to be fully appreciated and recognised. We owe it to them as well as to the public to legislate for penalties which really fit the crimes that their investigations discover. They have had for too long the heartbreaking experience of successfully bringing culprits to court, often after a long, tedious and watchful inquiry, only to see a derisory fine imposed, a fine which really represents peanuts as compared with the financial gains that have resulted from those operations. Instead of deterring criminal activities, these fines are so low as to encourage illegal dealing. Even if the people are caught and prosecuted, they have very little to lose. They can, and do, quickly set up in business again and they have the cash to do it. So the activities that they have been indulging in are going to be dealt with by the Bill.
  The purpose of the Bill, as I say, is to impose stricter and more commensurate penalties. But of course the Bill does not go far enough. It will, we trust, be a more powerful deterrent than the previous legislation, but we clearly need stricter controls—for example, over knackers' yards—which the reputable firms in that business would welcome. We want all meat that is graded by slaughterhouse inspectors as unfit for human consumption to be stained and perhaps sterilised. And we must more strictly ensure that, for example, horsemeat and kangaroo meat, which may be perfectly wholesome, is properly labelled and sold for what it is.
  There are many other proposals for strengthening controls, inspection and so on, but all these desirable proposals are outside the scope of the Bill. I think

  455
  that they can in any case be more effectively introduced in regulations, for which the Act provides. I am pleased to learn that the Ministry intends to bring in some of the regulations that are now being examined, and I hope that they will not be long delayed.
  In commending the Bill, may I say that it has an impeccable pedigree. It was first mooted, as I have said, by the professional institutes of the environmental health and trading standards officers, and their concern for stricter penalties was shared by the Consumers Association and other consumers bodies. It was the Consumers Association's legal officers, Mr. Tench and Miss Duckham, who drafted the Bill which Mr. Atkinson introduced. The Ministry have supported the Bill all the way through and helped Mr. Atkinson to bring forward improving amendments. The Bill was sponsored by Members on both sides of the House in the other place. It is truly an all-Party Bill and it is supported by the reputable trade associations: the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers' Association, the Imported Meat Trade Association and other trade and consumer bodies. It had an unopposed course up to the Report stage when the Government introduced two controversial amendments setting out new defences that a person charged with an offence may plead. These amendments were not found to be acceptable in the other place and the Parliamentary Secretary withdrew them.
  The Ministry, as I am sure, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will tell us later, is now engaged in a rather hurried and comprehensive consultation with about 300 various organisations to find out whether the new defences which have been proposed are what they want, in order to show whether there is substantial support for them when the amendments are reintroduced in this House. I am pretty sure what the result of this mass canvass will be, at least arithmetically. All, or most, of the trade associations will support the new defences while the consumer bodies and, I would suspect, local authorities and enforcement officers will be opposed to them. I do not know how the Ministry is going to sort out these conflicting opinions. My own view is that the Ministry should leave the defences as they are in the Act, at least for the time being, because I would agree that the defences in consumer protection, trading standards and health standards legislation need to be examined. We need to be sure that we have the right defences according to the nature of the charges made.
  I cannot agree that a defence which is appropriate in a case of misleading advertising is a defence that is equally appropriate when dealing with such dangerous matters as the sale of diseased meat to the public. This has to be sorted out. Obviously the traders who become the innocent victims of conspiracies of this kind must have adequate defences; but let us discuss and properly examine this question of defences and not try to insert new defences at a late stage, without any previous discussion, into a Private Member's Bill. This is a most inappropriate course to take.
  Finally, I have been told that some parts of the Bill are not quite clear to laymen, and certainly they were not quite clear to me until I obtained some better explanations. It might be useful if I skip briefly through the clauses. Clauses 1 and 3 give effect to the Bill's
  456
  three objectives of stricter penalties and the extension of the time limits. The second part of Clause 3, which sets out the time limits for prosecutions based on samples of food which has been found faulty by inspectors, now carries a correction. I believe that a correction slip has been circulated with the Bill; it refers to the time limits for prosecutions based on milk samples.
  Clause 2 (although it does not appear to do this) says that some minor offences shall continue to be heard summarily and not be taken to the Crown Court. These include such matters as failure to display a name and address on the side of mobile ice-cream vans and other minor offences of that kind—and it is, of course, quite proper that they should remain minor offences. Clause 4 ensures that in any regulations —for example, to strengthen the controls on the meat trade—the penalties will not be out of line with those in the Bill and may be increased by order, if this is found to be necessary, without recourse to an amending Bill. Clause 5 is needed because the original provision in the Act for penalties of obstruction has now been overtaken—or will be overtaken—by the Criminal Justice Bill which imposes a fine of £1,000 and no imprisonment for obstruction. Clause 6 also brings the Bill into line with the Criminal Justice Bill.
  Clause 7 repeals a part of the Act which covered offences committed before 1956, when the Act came into force. Clause 8 should be taken with Clause 11 (including the correction of a printer's error) which says that the Bill will apply only in England and Wales, but as with the now accepted practice in dealing with Northern Ireland legislation, it will be extended there. I am told that there is nothing sinister in the omission of Scotland but that Scottish law already provides for the penalties now laid down in this Bill.
  Clause 9 allows the financial penalties to be increased by order if this is found to be necessary and, again, without recourse to an amending Bill. Clause 10 says that the Bill will not be retrospective, and Clause 12 delays the coming into operation of the Act until 1st January next year. The reason for this is that Crown Court trials are more expensive than those in the lower courts, and no provision has been made for the greater expense in the present financial year. It is not expected that there will be many cases brought to court between 1st January and the end of the financial year, and so the strain on the Exchequer will not be very great. My Lords, I repeat that this is an urgently needed Bill which I hope will have your Lordships' support. I beg
  to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)
  1.46 p.m.
  Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I rise warmly to support this Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on the comprehensive way in which he has introduced this Bill, which makes my task this afternoon much easier and allows me to speak more briefly than I might otherwise have been able to do. I should also like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, in expressing

  457
  my thanks to the mover of the Bill in another place and for the public spirit which he showed in presenting this Bill as the result of his good fortune in the ballot.
  The need for this Bill was highlighted by the publicity given last year to a scandalous case concerning the distribution of unfit meat. I will not go into the details, but it became quite clear from that case that the penalties available to the courts for dealing with such disgraceful business conduct were totally inadequate. In the course of my professional career, I have been associated with the operation of trades description Acts. These Acts are largely concerned with protecting the consumer irrespective of the marketing and advertising, et cetera, of articles. The penalties which the present Bill proposes to introduce into the Food and Drugs Act 1955 are somewhat similar to those contained in the trades description Acts. If penalties can be introduced into the trades description Acts with regard to articles, I would support even heavier penalties than those which have now been introduced into this Bill.
  I would also urge upon the Government not to make it easier for persons in this kind of trade to be able to defend themselves more easily than the present Bill allows. I even feel that the scope of defences offered in this Bill to defendants in such cases are not severe enough or extensive enough. We are here dealing with the distribution of food which is unfit and therefore dangerous or potentially dangerous to the health of consumers of all ages. It seems to me that this requires heavy penalties. I agree with the noble Lord that this Bill does not go far enough.
  There is one last matter that I should like to mention. As the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, has mentioned, this Bill does not come into operation, for administrative reasons, until the beginning of next year. I should like, therefore, to urge upon the Government, the Consumer Council and trade associations, and other associations concerned with the quality of food distribution, that the widest publicity be given to the terms of this present Bill during its procedure through these Houses of Parliament. The publication of the terms of this Bill in its present form may act as a deterrent, so that the trade of the kind we have heard of, which has prompted this Bill, can be stamped out. I am sure that the public will be reassured by the terms of this Bill that efforts are being made to stamp out this kind of trade, and I am also certain that the Bill will be welcomed by that hardworking and conscientious group of men and women, the environmental health officers in local authorities. I support the Bill very strongly.
  1.52 p.m.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, welcome the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, and would like to congratulate him, if I may, on the comprehensive and convincing way in which he introduced it. I should say to your Lordships that in speaking to you I am advised on what I have to say by the Food and Drink Administrative Council, who have an interest, of course, in aspects of the Bill. I, too, agree that there is a real need for the 1955 Act to be updated in respect of penalties, as
  458
  clearly these have got wildly out of date; indeed several of them still seem to be in pounds, shillings and pence. From that point of view this Bill is very necessary.
  I also think that the Government were wise in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Darling, said, to take advantage of the Bill also to update the clauses which relate to defences; it has been found over the years—after all, 1955 is a long time ago—that, excellent though the Act was considering its great age, and little amendment though it actually requires, as well as in the area of penalites it was in the area of defences available to processors and distributors that an improvement could be made. This is basically because those defences have turned out not to be strictly fair. It is a question of fairness to the trader that one is concerned about. I would hope that your Lordships would not think that this is in any sense an easing of the risk of penalties to traders; it is a question of making them fairer, fairer as shown by experience over 20 years. So it was a welcome fact that the Government tabled amendments to take care of this position in another place. I think it is very reasonable that it should have been found that the consultation, which I am sure has taken place in the past, had not apparently taken place recently, and that under those circumstances it was wise of the Government to withdraw those amendments at that stage and to set in train the inquiry with all interested parties to which the noble Lord, Lord Darling, made reference. As I understand it, the timing of that inquiry is such as to be able to produce the answer to the Government before we get stuck into the Committee stage of this Bill. I would hope that what they discover is that there is a real need for this updating of the defences to make them more fair, and I hope that they will be able to reintroduce their amendments or similar amendments into the Bill when it comes to the Committee stage.
  In the event that the Government do not feel that they have enough evidence to justify this in this particular Bill, it would be my intention to introduce my own amendments on those lines, at least to test your Lordships' opinion as to whether you agree with me and with the food industry that they arc necessary. Of course, that would be very much a second-best situation, because, as I am sure we are all aware, it might have the effect, if one pressed the amendments —I am not by any means threatening that sort of thing now, because I just want to test the situation—but if one were to press them the Bill might be in jeopardy when it was returned to another place. I am very well aware of that and I would like your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Darling, to realise that that is something that I understand. However, this makes it even more important, if the Government are not quite sure what to do, for them to move the relevant amendments, because I would have thought that if they are the Government's amendments the jeopardy to the Bill in another place would be very much reduced. I would like my noble friend to think on those lines, not at this stage of the game but when he comes to make his judgment as to whether to go through with the amendments at a later stage. I hope he will bear in mind what I have just said. So I welcome the Bill and would hope that suitably expanded, if that is the way it works out, it gets a fair wind through all its stages in your Lordships' House.
  1.57 p.m.
  Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, it may be necessary for me to leave before this Bill receives its Second Reading, as I have a commitment in Oxford. If that is necessary, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will forgive me and that your Lordships will permit me to go. I stay because I believe that this Bill is of supreme importance to the community. Those of us who have had an opportunity of looking at it, talking to people who really know—if I can speak for others and that is always a highly dangerous thing to do—but at any rate speaking for myself, I was completely horrified to learn what was going on. It would seem that the Food and Drugs Act 1955 needs not just to be amended in the ordinary sense of the world, but to be thoroughly strengthened. As I understand the situation, the Bill now before us does precisely that.
  I think, too, that it is worth bearing in mind that this Bill, unlike so many other Private Member's Bills, has behind it the undivided, unqualified support of all the major organisations, and among major organisations I include local authorities, if I say, including the Environmental Health Officers Association, that is not to suggest that they are less important, because they are the people upon whom falls the responsibility to enforce the law.
  My Lords, having regard to what is happening at the present time in this racket, which is getting worse and worse as the years go by, this Bill is supremely important and has considerable significance so far as the community is concerned. For many years now we have had unloaded on the market a considerable amount of unfit meat. My noble friend Lord Darling has said that it is estimated by the Environmental Health Officers Institution that something like 2 per cent. of all meat sold as beef in meat products in the last year came from very dubious sources. I do not know what 2 per cent is in terms of tons, but I understand it is very considerable. And the term "unfit meat", which is bought at minimal cost and sold at considerable profit, includes, as I understand it, meat slaughtered without hygienic precautions and likely to be diseased or infected; meat considered fit only for pet food, and again meat that is not fit for human consumption. I understand that there is slaughterhouse meat fit only for pet food, and again unfit for human consumption. I understand that there is abundant evidence that the racketeers get their main supplies illegally from a number of sources, including imports from abroad.
  I should like to try and illustrate the situation by referring—as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred—to a well publicised court case in 1931. The noble Lord said that he did not want to go into the details. I have had my lunch so I am all right, but I hope that it will not put anybody else off. There were two men, directors of a firm with a turnover of £1½ million, selling meat all over the country—hundreds and hundreds of tons of contaminated meat, including horse and kangaroo meat—as being fit for human consumption. The firm was summoned for selling 638 tons of such meat in a period of less than eight months, for which it received something like—and this is an approximate figure—£828,000.
  I mention this because it will give your Lordships some idea of how inadequate the Act is at present and how much need there is for this amending Bill to
  460
  strengthen it. In order to get a substantial fine it was necessary to charge them with 183 offences for which the magistrates imposed the highest penalty of £100, so that made it £18,300 worth of fines on the meat. Each of the two directors at the company were fined £6,100 apiece and had to pay £2,000 costs. When we add that together it is a very small amount compared with the costs of the investigation and the bringing of the proceedings, which I understood were in the region of £52,000. The defendants' counsel stated that the firm had gone into voluntary liquidation. My information is that one week after the case one of the defendants launched a new company of meat packers.
  This food is sometimes quite disgraceful. On investigation it was found that some of it contained evidence of faeces; there was meat with cancerous content, not to mention the earwigs, the matchsticks and so on. It really is a most appalling situation. The evidence is available for everybody to see. This type of thing is not only going on, but has been going on for a considerable time. I believe that it is of supreme importance that this particular amending Bill should go through your Lordships' House unimpaired, and I hope that nothing will be done to impede it in any way.
  2.4 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough on bringing the Bill forward after its very successful passage through another place. I should also like to congratulate Mr. Norman Atkinson and particularly those who drafted the Bill. It is a very important measure, not only as regards its effect of increased protection to the health of the public, but also as regards increasing the severity of punishment for an unscrupulous minority attempting financial gain by imposing a threat to public health. To take determined action to endanger the public health is, in fact, a criminal act.
  I was employed some years ago in the wholesale meat trade and at one time involved in the purchase and sale of boneless beef from Australia and the Irish Republic for despatch to, above all places, Chicago in the United States. My experience was that the severity of control in the United States was such that any importer would have to take out rejection insurance at great cost in case the Americans rejected a whole shipment possibly because there was a splinter in one packet of meat.
  I soon became aware from that experience of the general efficiency of meat and health inspectors and others involved in detecting unsound meat of whatever kind. I would say that the great majority of butchers, wholesale and retail, who themselves detect unsound meat—either whole or part carcase—immediately call in the inspectors and obtain the necessary condemnation certificate, which, incidentally, allows them credit from those who supplied the meat to them. In many cases such unfit meat is stained with a dye, but not always. Further, the dye generally does not go right through the meat and, in this respect, I believe that stricter regulations are required to ensure the safe disposal of condemned meat. In my view, it should be taken away and burnt. The dye should, as I have said, percolate right through the meat.
  Kangaroo meat was mentioned in another place and here today. It has been imported from Australia, but

  461
  the Australian authorities are not very happy about it. I would say—and I am subject to correction, although I am quite certain of my facts—that with such meat there is a high risk of salmonella. In any case, in my view it should be prohibited for human consumption. Incidentally, so far as I am aware, the one-time demand for kangaroo tails has now disappeared. At one time when there was a meat shortage they were considered by some people to be a considerable delicacy—personally, they did not attract me. Once manufacturing meat is minced, as has already been said, it is difficult to check actual content, and this is where the problem of dealing with unscrupulous operators arises. All operators involved in the preparation of manufacturing meat should, in my view, be licensed and all packs should carry a detailed guarantee of content, similar to that applying to canned and prepared food packs.
  In spite of some of the advertisements even for pet food, manufacturing meat does not, of course, consist of prime cuts; they are the cuts which, in the main, unfortunately, the housewife does not regard as useful for the family diet, but if old cookery books are studied, it will be seen that they are better for the family and certainly more economical.
  As I have already said, the licensing and the labelling can be done—and possibly is already done—through current regulations. I do not think that there is any question of it affecting this Bill. There are, of course, regulations regarding the meat content of sausages, although now and again, as some of us know, fragments of bone and gristle grate the teeth of the consumer. I am not sure whether such regulations are in force regarding pies, hamburgers and similar products. This takes me back some years when I knew a butcher in Bristol who was famed for his pork pies. All I can say is that he was one of our best buyers of fat, old, frozen imported ewes. I can only suspect that the secret of his success was the use of spices. I do not claim for one moment that this happens today, but here, of course, was no threat to the public health. But I would want to repeat that the bulk use of manufacturing meat is in need of tight check, particularly at the point of preparation and manufacture. But, if you have licensing control and compulsory labelling of packs, there is some check against the unscrupulous operator. That is the point I would put forward, but I do not think that it need necessarily interfere with the progress of the Bill.
  Generally—and I think that it is only right to say this—we have a good check on our food protection for the public in Britain. But examples, like the horrifying one of unsound cooking oil exposed in Italy, justify our continuing and extending safeguards. Any evasion of regulations can and must be severely dealt with. In conclusion, the Bill is welcome and from these Benches I wish it a speedy passage through the House. I sincerely trust that no action will be taken here to impede its progress.
  2.11 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Darling, for having introduced this Bill this afternoon. The noble Lord explained in detail the rationale behind this Bill, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government are equally concerned at the need for the Bill. I would agree with the
  462
  sentiments that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Darling. The noble Lord said that the Ministry of Agriculture had supported the Bill's passage in another place and helped his colleague in drafting the Bill. The Government gave their full co-operation to the honourable Gentleman who introduced the Bill in order to secure a number of amendments, which will ensure that the Bill achieves the objective which it was intended to achieve.
  That objective is to ensure that stiffer penalties are made available to the courts to deal with those who trade in unfit food, and particularly meat. If I may say so, I think that the Bill as it stands, in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Darling, is a better Bill than when it was first introduced in another place. I wish the noble Lord the greatest of success with his Bill while it is in this House.
  The noble Lord, Lord Darling, and, indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to the disgraceful acts in which some people indulge concerning the sale of unfit meat. I think that possibly this has become more so since so much traffic is done in frozen meat, because it is less easy to see and to identify what the contents are when it is frozen. I very largely supported the sentiments which were expressed then, because the public have a right to require and to expect high standards in the pursuance of trade in meat. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gave us some horrifying examples of what may and, according to him, has happened. The House will have been horrified by that. I have not had my lunch. I think, unlike the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, I shall now desist from having it—not only because of the hour.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act 1955 so as to make the major offences under the Act triable either on indictment or summarily, instead of only summarily. The maximum fine on summary conviction for the major offences will be increased. The penalty for conviction on indictment will be an unlimited fine, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both. The Bill also alters the provisions on time limits for bringing prosecutions which will allow enforcement authorities more time to prepare difficult cases.
  The Government fully share the concern which has been the motivating force behind this Bill; that is, that strong action should be taken to prevent the illegal use of unfit meat. It is, in the view of the Government, vital that the public should have full confidence that the meat and the meat products which they buy are fit to eat, and also that the excellent reputation of the great majority of our meat traders should not be sullied by the activities of those few who are unscrupulous.
  No single measure can achieve these objectives on its own, and, following extensive consultation with the many organisations which are affected by this spectrum of legislation, the Government propose to issue new regulations which will seek to tighten up some other regulations—for instance, the Meat Sterilisation Regulations 1969. This of course may be another matter, but it is nevertheless a connected and supportive link in the effort to strengthen the law against those who seek to act irresponsibly.
  The noble Lord, Lord Darling, referred to the new clauses which were introduced in another place and

  463
  which were subsequently withdrawn by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that he did not like them. I am not surprised that he said that. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he liked them. These amendments of course related to the main defences which are currently available under the Act. It has been argued by some that, as the penalties under the Act are being increased to accord with similar offences in other legislation, then in turn the main defence which is available under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 should also be brought into line with the defences in those Acts which create similar offences. That was the purpose of my honourable friend's amendments.
  I realise that it has wide implications. In consequence of this my department is consulting, as the noble Lord, Lord Darling, said, with interested parties with a view to determining whether there is general support for such an amendment or not. The consultation period does not end until 21st May, and I hope your Lordships will understand if I say that I cannot, at this stage, say what the Government's view will then be. I did note, however, with a wry smile that my noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he greatly welcomed the Bill, but that he would wish to move some similar amendments as those moved in another place. But he conceded that he realised that this might mean the loss of the Bill which, as a Private Member's Bill, we all want to see on the statute book; so he then said that perhaps the Government might like to move the amendments. I admired his generosity of approach. Clearly, this is one of the considerations which the Government will have to bear in mind, together with the results of the review when they come to hand, and I cannot, as I said, say now what the Government's position will then be.
  464
  The Government believe that this Bill will make an important contribution to the overall objective by making penalties and legal procedures more appropriate to the nature of the offence in these cases. We support this Bill, and I wish the noble Lord, Lord Darling, the greatest of success with it in its passage through your Lordships' House.
  2.19 p.m.
  Lord Darling of Hillsborough: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. All of them of course have supported the Bill. There is only one slightly controversial issue. It would be most inappropriate of me to pursue it now. All I can say is that I still do not like the two clauses that were introduced in the other place, and maybe not only should there be consultation with this enormous number of organisations that the Government are now talking to, or asking opinions from, but it might be worthwhile having consultation with the sponsors of the Bill. After all, it is an all-party Bill.
  As I said, I sincerely hope that when the results of this mass canvass, as I have called it, come to the attention of the Ministry, they will not be judged arithmetically. If they are, I can say now what the result will be; there will be 220 for, 10 against and about 60 abstentions. How they will be sorted out by the Ministry I do not know, though the abstainers are the ones who will carry public opinion with them. However, we shall see how it goes. Again, I thank all noble Lords who have supported the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past two o'clock.