Lords Sitting of 11 March 1983

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

Teacher Training
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to improve the quality of training provided for potential teachers.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this Government have shown considerable concern about the quality of training provided for potential teachers. In England and Wales they have received advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of schools and from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers on ways in which such training might be improved, and a consultative document has also been issued on the question of qualified teacher status. The current reorganisation of the training system in England and Wales is being implemented in such a way as to provide a sound institutional base for the system. The Government are now considering what changes, if any, might be proposed which would affect the selection and assessment of potential teachers, and the content of the courses provided for them. In Northern Ireland, similar initiatives have been undertaken. For Scotland, an announcement was made recently about major changes in primary teacher training.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full Answer. Has he any information as to how potential teachers are advised to deal with violent hooliganism in schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in recent years there has been a welcome increase in the time given to the practical aspects of teaching during initial teacher training courses. Additionally, it is the Government's intention that experienced practising teachers should be encouraged to take a more active part in training students, and that more of the students' training should be classroom-based. I believe that these developments will help with the problems which my noble friend has mentioned. However, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that in these matters, as in many others, there is no substitute for experience.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware of the great satisfaction which has been felt throughout the Church through the saving of Bishop Grosse Teste College of Education in Lincoln which covers a wide area of East Anglia, and does this not speak well for the continuing happy relationships of Church and State in education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was not in fact aware of the feelings that the right reverend Prelate has just enunciated and I am very grateful to him for his remarks.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to ask whether my noble friend the Minister has the figures for the number of student teachers from the ethnic minorities who are in training at present?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the answer to that question is, no, he has not, but he will certainly write to his noble friend with them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can comment on the fact that there appears to be some need for better dress and tidiness among teachers? When one sees the number of strange creatures who appear on teacher demonstrations at times, one wonders why any of their pupils bother to obey them at all.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that there are any courses dealing with that matter that are run in any institutions that I know. I have also noticed in your Lordships' House that there are some strange forms of dress which creep in from time to time, but they do not seem to lower the standard of debate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Earl any figures concerning the population of training colleges? Is it the Government's policy to reduce the number of teacher trainees in view of the fact, I believe, that there are 38,000 unemployed teachers in the country at present? Or is it the Government's policy to decrease the teacher/student ratio?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not have any figures available on that, but in May 1982 advice from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers pointed to a considerable reduction in the overall need for newly trained teachers following a sharp fall in the school population. The primary and secondary intakes now proposed for England and Wales for the years 1983 and 1985 will produce a total number of places in 1985 which will be about 20 per cent. less than was intended when the present system was designed. It is not acceptable that the reductions should be absorbed by leaving the same number of institutions to provide the same number of courses but with smaller groups of students. Even in 1981 there were several course options followed by only one or two students and that cannot make educational or economic sense. We believe that it was right to create larger teaching groups in some institutions even though that meant that others would lose courses or cease to provide initial training altogether. So the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is quite right; it is the Government's intention to cut down as, indeed, the school population falls.

Local Authority Manpower Reductions
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 has been the total value of the economies made in local government by manpower savings.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since May 1979 local authority manpower in Great Britain has decreased by some 112,000 full time equivalents of 4.7 per cent. The value of the economies made by manpower reductions cannot be separately calculated.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that reply. I know how very difficult it is to reduce the staff in many local authorities, but I would congratulate him on the fact that this trend, anyway, is going in the right direction and possibly will go further as time goes on.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that praise of the Government, but I should point out that there is currently a hiccup in the reductions and we, like my noble friend, are trying extremely hard to continue with these.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the hiccups extend too far and the praise gets out of hand, will the Minister say what economies have been made in the higher reaches of the manpower services in local government? Can he say to what extent the savings are offset by the costs of unemployment and other benefits concerned? Have the Government assessed the social consequences of not spending money on some very essential services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not the Government's intention, and never has been, to reduce the local authorities' manpower to unpalatable levels. As we heard just now, the manpower reductions have occurred in education as regards lecturers, teachers and administrators because of the falling school population; as regards refuse collection, through contracting out, and also in construction and miscellaneous services affecting mainly the town hall staff. I am advised that manpower is not homogeneous; it ranges from the low-paid manuals through to chief executives, although, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no chief executives have been made redundant.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, could the Minister say what is meant by the word "palatable"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not unpalatable.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has the unpalatable produced the hiccups?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not at this early hour.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the falling school population because of the drop in the birth rate, do the Government have any plans in mind to remedy this situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather think that we went through that subject on the previous Question.

Accommodation for Single Homeless People
11.14 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 amount was paid in the last financial year to local authorities in respect of expenditure on provision for single homeless people; on what basis the sums were calculated; and what future provision is proposed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I told the House last week, it is for authorities themselves to decide within the total resources available to them, how much to spend on accommodation for the single homeless. Housing Investment Programme resources are distributed in a single block and housing subsidy is not related to specific projects. Broadly, 75 per cent. of the annual loan charges on the cost of projects will be reckonable expenditure and count towards authorities' subsidy entitlement. In addition, as part of its hostels initiatives, the Government have, since 1981–82, given an allocation to the Housing Corporation specifically for hostel provision.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recall that he also told the House, at column 1140 of the Official Report for 2nd March, that the grant goes in large proportion to those areas which are seen to need it? At that time my question was: how is that "being seen to need it" assessed? does the noble Lord also recall saying in the same column that in the event of disaster affecting hostels, there would be no question but that residents would be rehoused? My question is: by whom, and, in particular, how is a borough like Camden, and the ratepayers of Camden, supposed to deal with 1,000 homeless men who are to be turned out of Rowton House in Arlington Road, which this private firm has put up for sale?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to take the noble Baroness's last point first, as I told the House last week, negotiations on the future of the Rowton hostels are still in progress. Another meeting is to take place within the purlieus of my department today. I understand, of course, the continuing concern of noble Lords on this subject, but I am afraid that I am not in a position to say anything further at the moment in view of current discussions. On the question of rehousing, if the worst comes to the worst it would be a matter for each local authority to decide into which particular category the inhabitants fall—whether they are vulnerable or not vulnerable. If they are vulnerable, there would be a duty on the local authority to find them accommodation. If not, they would receive advice and assistance to help find that accommodation.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sorry to follow this up again, but that is a totally unrealistic reply. Does the noble Lord not agree that every inhabitant of Rowton House is vulnerable—otherwise he would not

427
be there? How can a borough like Camden, with all the stresses on its housing list, suddenly deal with 1,000 people?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not agree that current inhabitants of hostels are necessarily in the vulnerable category. They were almost certainly in the vulnerable category when they were originally housed there, which is rather a different matter. As regards whether Camden can afford this exercise, as I said last week—and I am quite happy to repeat it now—obviously, the grant goes more to those areas which require it than those areas, such as the shire counties, which very often do not.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the question I put to him last week at column 1140; that is to say, whether the local authorities concerned have the power to make a control order enabling them to assume responsibility for the management of these hostels if it should come to the point of the owners selling them off to private enterprise and thus rendering all the inhabitants homeless. Could they do that pending the making of a compulsory purchase order by the Department of the Environment, and is that a matter which has been discussed between the boroughs and the right honourable gentleman, Sir George Young, from the Department of the Environment? Could the noble Lord also say a little more about his statement that his right honourable friend would shortly be producing a statement on the future of the units that currently exist—23 in Great Britain and 35 grant-aided ones throughout the country—and on what will happen overall to those?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I cannot add anything further to what I said last week. I do not think that I referred to a statement. I said that my right honourable friend was considering the position and would report, which is slightly different from a statement in your Lordships' House or in another place. As regards control orders, yes, the councils have the statutory power to use them if they so require. I should not like to be drawn any further on discussions of this particular matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the need arises in large urban areas which attract homeless people from other areas, and do any powers exist to return homeless people to whence they came?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot give a definitive answer on that, but I should think that it is extremely unlikely. I am the last person to want to pressurise people into doing what they do not want to do.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as the chairman of a large centre for the homeless in Camden, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, except for the answer he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the answers he has given have caused enormous disquiet? The other answers will have
428
caused widespread disquiet in Camden and also where the homeless are a matter of great concern.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government, as again I said last week, share the deep concern felt in all parts of your Lordships' House and indeed up and down the country. As to whether the answers I have given will have caused great distress and great concern in Camden particularly, no, my Lords, I was not aware of that.

Paternity: Mr. Garry Jackson's Application
11.21 a.m.
Lord Sudeley: 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, in the light of the recent recommendations of the Law Commission regarding the position of illegitimate children, whether the circumstances relating to the paternity of a child disclosed in the application for a Personal Bill by Mr. Garry Jackson dealt with by the Personal Bills Committee of this House on the 16th February 1982 require further consideration.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Law Commission's recommendations on illegitimacy would not assist Mr. Jackson in the circumstances disclosed in his Petition. The Law Commission propose a procedure for obtaining a declaration of paternity as to the applicant's parentage. Mr. Jackson's claim was for a declaration in his own favour that he was entitled to a declaration of his own paternity in respect of a child, in a case where the issue had been determined against him in a court of first instance and the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Taking into account the original proposals to the Law Commission in this connection, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he might review his decision if I submit certain papers to him on such a matter, on the basis that if a Bill were tabled before the House the matter, as such, reviewed by the Law Commission would be fully debated in this House with a view to certain and general legislation on the issues involved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if a Bill is tabled before this House and I am still Lord Chancellor, I suppose I shall be called upon to answer it.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
11.22 a.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE in the Chair.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause: Transfer to Public Record Office of records relating to births, deaths and marriages.
(" .—(1) After section 8 of the Public Records Act 1958 (court records) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Transfer to Public Record Office of records relating to births, deaths and marriages.
8A.—(1) This section applies to the following records, namely registers and certified copies of entries in registers, being registers or certified copies kept or deposited in the General Register Office under or in pursuance of any enactment (whether past or future) which provides for the registration of births, deaths or marriages, but excluding so much of any such record as relates to a still-birth.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar General, not less than three months before the expiration of the period of one hundred years beginning with the 1st January next after the date of the registration under or in pursuance of any such enactment of any birth, death or marriage, to transfer to the Public Record Office any record to which this section applies relating to that birth, death or marriage (including any correction or addition made to that record after that date).
(3) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall not be available for public inspection until the expiration in relation to those records of the period of one hundred years mentioned in subsection (2) above; but (subject to that) it shall be the duty of the Keeper of Public Records to arrange that reasonable facilities are available to the public for inspecting and obtaining copies of the records so transferred.
(4) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall be in the custody of the Keeper of Public Records (instead of that of the Registrar General); and, where under or in pursuance of any enactment any duty is imposed on the Registrar General—

(a) to keep records to which this section applies, or

(b) to include references to records to which this section applies in indexes kept by him, or

(c) to provide persons with certified copies of records to which this section applies,

that duty shall cease to apply in relation to any records which have been do transferred, in the case of a duty falling within paragraph (a) above, on the transfer and, in any other case, on the records being made available for public inspection.
(5) The Registrar General shall not be under any duty under section 33 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (short certificate of birth) to provide any person with a short certificate of the birth of any person if the records relating to that birth have been transferred to the Public Record Office under this section and are availabe for public inspection.
(6) The Lord Chancellor may, if it appears to him in the interests of the proper administration of the Public Record Office, direct that the transfer of any class of records under this section shall be suspended until arrangements for their reception have been completed.
(7) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall be temporarily returned to the General Register Office at the request of the Registrar General; but the return of any records under this subsection shall not revive any duty referred to in subsection (4) or (5) above.
(8) A copy of or extract from a record transferred to the Public Record Office under this section and purporting to be examined and certified as true and authentic by the proper officer and to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the Public Record Office shall be received in evidence, and be of like force and effect, as if it had been so certified under the seal of the General Register Office.
(9) Her Majesty may, in relation to any class of records to which this section applies or to all such records, by Order in Council substitute references to a period of less than one hundred years for the references in subsections (2), (3) and (10) of this section to one hundred years or to any other period for the time being having effect by virtue of this subsection; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) Where for administrative purposes any records to which this section applies are kept together in one file or other assembly with other such records and the period of one hundred years mentioned in subsection (2) above would (apart from this subsection) expire in relation to the records so kept at different times, then the period shall be deemed to expire in relation to each record kept in that file or other assembly at the latest of those times.
(11) For the purposes of this section—

(a) where a birth has been both registered and re-registered, or a death has been registered more than once, the records relating to each registration or re-registration shall be treated as if they related to the registration of a different birth or death; and

(b) 'still birth' has the same meaning as in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.".

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the new section inserted by subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to any records relating to a birth, death or marriage which was registered one hundred years or more before 1st January next after the coming into force of this section as if the obligations imposed by subsections (2) and (3) of the new section to transfer the records to the Public Record Office and to make them available for public inspection fell to be performed as soon after the coming into force of this section as it is practicable for the records, respectively, to be so transferred and to be made so available.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall require any records to be transferred to the Public Record Office or made available for public inspection at any time earlier than the time at which by virtue of any of the provisions of the said new section those records would (apart from that subsection) fall to be so transferred or made so available.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which are consequential on it. The Bill, as it stands, modifies the exclusion of registers, et cetera, held at the General Register Office from the definition in Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 of "public records". It makes exclusion apply only to those registers, et cetera, which are 100 years old or less. Registers or certified copies of entries would thus became "public records" for the purposes of the 1958 Act once they were 100 years old or more, and thereby became open to public inspection. Unfortunately this approach does not quite fit in with other parts of the 1958 Act which, for example, assume that a public record is such from its creation. Similarly, it does not

431
fit in with Sections 3 and 5 of the 1958 Act, which make provision for selection and transfer of records within 30 years.
These amendments would form a new clause to be inserted into the Public Records Act 1958 as a new Section 8A. The effect of the amendments is to provide that one-hundred-year old records of births, deaths and marriages which are kept at the General Registry Office, together with the related indexes, shall be transferred to the Public Record Office and made available for public inspection. The Registrar General will be relieved of his statutory duties in relation to these records. Records of still births and adoptions are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but events recorded abroad are included.
Now it is for me to explain briefly the meaning of some of the subsections of this new clause. If it is not clear I hope that your Lordships will ask me questions, and if I cannot answer them I shall write. Subsection (1) is plainly the definition. Subsection (2) ensures that transfer of records from the Registrar General to the Public Record Office takes place three months before the date of opening to the public when they become 100 years old.
Subsection (3) provides for the opening, and date of public access. Subsection (4) relieves the Registrar General of his existing duties in respect of these records. Subsection (5) provides that the Registrar General will not be able to provide a short birth certificate for public inspection, nor will the Public Record Office be able to do so. However, if members of the public wish to get one they can do so from either a local or a superintending registrar.
Subsection (6) is a safeguard to allow the Lord Chancellor to direct that the transfer of any class of record be suspended until arrangements for their reception have been completed. Subsection (7) allows for the records to be temporarily transferred back to the Registrar General in case they wish to display them for exhibition purposes, or the like. Subsection (8) permits the Public Record Office to issue certified copies. Subsection (9) provides that an order in council be approved by both Houses of Parliament in case it is thought prudent at any time to reduce the closure period of 100 years. Subsection (10) repeats Clause 10(2) of the existing Public Records Act.
Subsection 11 ensures that
"where a birth has been both registered and re-registered, or a death has been registered more than once, the records relating to each registration or re-registration shall be treated as if they related to the registration of a different birth or death."
Section (2) deals with the transition provisions and with arrangements which are being made for this Bill to be enacted. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I think I said on Second Reading that the Government support the objectives of this Bill. The amendments proposed by my noble friend are necessary drafting changes. They have the same purpose and effect as his general draft, but are rendered necessary for technical reasons. In supporting them I should like to thank my noble friend for both his patience and his skill in dealing with this highly complex and technical matter in conjunction with the
432
parliamentary draftsmen and officials of my department. I am grateful to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I, too, should like to give a meed of support to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has been very wisely persistent in this matter. I am afraid he was less successful with me than with the present incumbent of the office of Lord Chancellor, but that was not through lack of sympathy on my part. He identified in the debate on Second Reading—and I was sorry I could not be here—the problem created at the moment by those who seek their roots, which has now become a popular pastime apparently; namely, the problem of, as we say in Wales, the paucity of patronymics in the Principality. We Joneses suffer a good deal from that.
I remember doing a case at Caernarvon Assizes (if the Committee will forgive me a moment's frivolity) when everyone in the case was Jones. The plaintiff and the defendant were Jones. I was led by my namesake, William Elwyn-Jones. Mars-Jones was leading Lloyd-Jones, and the judge was Austin Jones. My first witness was John Methuselah Jones, and I regret to say that I could not resist the temptation, having got his name and address, to ask him how old he was, which I fear did not amuse Mr. Justice Austin Jones. However, that is all by the way.
This seems a useful measure. There is nothing very revolutionary about it. One hundred years must pass before identification of the particulars and before they can be made available, and it obviously serves a useful and historic purpose.
Lord Teviot: I thank my noble and learned friend for his kind comments. I thank him very much for dealing with the matter and particularly I thank the officials who have been most patient in producing these highly technical amendments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his amusing comments; I suffer from time to time looking for the name of Jones. I am sure the Joneses of Wales will find it very much easier to find their Joneses by looking directly at the registers.
I would only add that, as I propose to delete the following two clauses, if your Lordships say "Not-Content" instead of "Content", that will avoid confusion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, citation and commencement]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from ("1982") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Travel Concessions for the Unemployed Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the purpose of this little Bill is to recognise the exhortation of the Secretary of State for Employment in another place that the unemployed should make every endeavour to find, and should travel to look for, work; he used the expression that, like their fathers, they should "get on their bikes". I believe he made that exhortation because of research that has been done, and I do not think he said it frivolously. If he did, this Bill would deserve to be treated in a frivolous manner. I think he knows the problems facing the unemployed—our fellow countrymen, robbed of the ability to earn a living—as their numbers have grown by tens of thousands month in and month out.
For the first time since the war, a Government face a situation of there being less jobs towards the end of their period in office than there were when they came in. The result is that the unemployed really have to search for jobs. The purpose of the Bill is to make a contribution to those who are endeavouring to seek gainful employment so as to keep themselves and their families in a reasonable and dignified way, and to escape that awful and frightful feeling of having to say, "I am on the dole". Whatever Parliament can do to assist to remove that anguish from the breasts of over 3 million unemployed, it should do.
There is a particularly gruesome situation about what is happening to the unemployed; unemployment is running through generations in the same family. For many of those who are now unemployed, the first time it happened to them was when they were young men, like myself, in the mid-'thirties. In 1936 there was massive unemployment, particularly among the 16 and 17 year-olds. Three or four years later—I ask the House to acknowledge this—many of them were to contribute to a magnificent endeavour when the British Expeditionary Force was driven out of Europe at Dunkirk.
We now have the situation that quite a number of them who were at Dunkirk as young men and who had known no gainful employment until they were called, and responded, in the defence of their country, are now back on the dole. No Member of this or the other Chamber can feel in any way happy at that situation, and it behoves us to make any contribution we can to try to reduce the numbers unemployed.
Men aged, say, 62 to 64 who have lost their jobs are, as I say, back in the situation they faced in the mid and late 'thirties. There is the even more agonising situation that in some instances, so are there sons and daughters. Therefore, when we use the phrase "the unemployed", while the nation I hope understands the agony and frustration they and their families face as a result of that unemployment, we must realise that it is not merely a question of what we are losing economically—because many of them are skilled and professional men, in addition to the vital labourers—but of what is happening within their families. I can remember the times when we used our
434
bikes in Wales—at least where I lived. We used our bikes to go downhill, but we had to push them back uphill, if we did not get the job, or even if we got it.
Today many unemployed people, in particular in the large urban areas, are prepared urgently and earnestly to seek work. Consider the unemployed man who, in looking for work, has to undertake a journey in, say, the greater Glasgow area, or Birmingham, or the Greater Manchester area, or London. He might be a former docker, living in Greenford. I know all about this kind of thing. I have seen the rows in my family when my father went to the docks and did not get a job. When he got home my mother said, "You were a fool. Why didn't you go to the so-and-so pit? They started half a dozen men there". Then there was a row, with all of us children sitting silently. All of this was happening to us, in the heart of the British Empire, because of a useless, inefficient Government. Yet, three or four years later, we responded to the call. I sincerely hope that the young men on the dole today will not have to do that, but they should not be neglected simply because they have not had to respond to the call.
As I have already stated, under a DHSS scheme the disabled unemployed receive assistance. But I believe that the able-bodied unemployed need assistance, too. I was giving your Lordships an example involving a docker. I do not mean it in any cruel way, but there are some people whose standard of living is such that they are so naïve about the realities of life that they cannot understand that at the moment when a man loses his job he looks again at the rate demand and the rent book, and he wonders whether he can keep the TV. I am becoming sick and tired of all the talk about unemployed Britions coasting all over the country in their posh cars. Why insult the unemployed?—because that is what that kind of argument does, and it has been deprecated.
Consider a man living on £30 a week in, say, Greenford, Hayes, or Southall. He is a docker, an extraordinarily skilled man. Each day he hears that there might be a start somewhere in one of our great London docks, or perhaps in Southampton, Cardiff, Swansea, or Glasgow. Off he goes, and the journey there and back makes a hole in £6 or £7; and that £6 or £7 is vital to the unemployed man who has a family. Such a situation brings about a new despair. Has he the right to spend the money to go to look for work, or should he keep it to help bring up his family?
The Bill was born out of an idea by the Greater Manchester City Council, which undertook massive research into the problem. To gain the views of the unemployed the council used the national opinion polls, and I shall tell your Lordships why it used those polls. Notwithstanding all the things that the political parties argue about nowadays, month in and month out, the national opinion polls show that the question that concerns our nation above all else is unemployment. So we must treat seriously this little Bill this morning in your Lordships' House.
In examining its researches, the Greater Manchester City Council discovered the frustration experienced by a man or woman, young or middle aged, biting his or her nails, wondering whether it is worth spending a fiver because there is a possibility of a job; and then

435
perhaps deciding that it is not worth the risk. For them the cost of living is too tight, every halfpenny must be looked at; and that surely must be a bad thing.
Manchester City Council then decided that further examination of the situation was required. The council did not rush into it. The council realised that, human nature being what it is, it had to take full cognisance of the possibility, even among the unemployed, of a tiny minority cheating and committing fraud. So the council wanted to see how to deal with this problem, too. It found the answer quite easily. Under the Manchester City Council scheme, the unemployed person does not receive the full fare, but a percentage of it—and only after the pro forma has been filled in by the employer who has interviewed the applicant. The employer must sign the form, which must be returned to the council offices, and there is a part refund of the money that the unemployed man expended in his endeavour to seek gainful employment.
Time will not allow me to go through all the detail, but for a few moments I should like to adumbrate what has been done. The Manchester Council has asked the Greater Manchester Transport Executive to devise a scheme to provide reduced fares for the unemployed on public transport. So though initially there is bound to be a subsidy from the rates, the money is paid back, and part of the cost is paid by the unemployed man himself. If only a third of them become gainfully employed, consider the relief that that will provide for the individuals, as well as the fact that they will no longer be drawing dole. In one exercise it was shown that such a situation could almost improve the financial position, rather than detract from it. I beg your Lordships to bear that point in mind.
So as to make sure that it had covered every possible eventuality, the Greater Manchester City Council undertook interviews, asking general questions about job seeking. Incidentally, the council interviewed 971 people. The council wanted to know how far did an applicant live from where a particular job was advertised as being available, and it was found that the distances ranged from four miles to 24 miles. People who volunteered to give the information were asked, "How did you get here today?" and 36 per cent. of them said, "We walked"; 38 per cent. had gone by bus; 13 had had lifts; 4 per cent. had travelled by bicycle, and 1 per cent. by train. Those people were prepared to go and help by giving the information. I think that that is marvellous; I really do. It shows the guts of the British that 900 unemployed Mancunians were quite prepared to put their hands in their pockets in order to go to their city hall to co-operate in an inquiry into how the rest of their colleagues might receive a few shillings to help them to go to look for jobs. We must take cognisance of that.
I hope that we shall dismiss feeble arguments that we have already discussed this question—for six minutes. Are we to tell the unemployed, "Your case was examined in this great Chamber for half a dozen minutes"? I fear that the unemployed would not be at all enamoured of this Chamber if they were to be told that.
I should like to point out that the scheme to which
436
I have referred was completely supported by all the political parties on that great council. There was total unanimity, and it is my hope that there will be total unanimity in this House as well. That I believe is a fundamental point. The council inquired of the same number of people how long they had been unemployed, and then, how many jobs they had applied for in that time. People gave various replies according to the number of jobs that they had sought in a year. Some of them had gone after as many as 40 or 50 jobs. I repeat, my Lords, unemployed men had gone after 40 or 50 jobs, and the average cost would have been about £4 or £5 a time. These are the realities of the situation.
Then they asked more questions, and ultimately they devised a scheme. Because of what happened at Bromley and what happened with the Law Lords of this House, the Manchester City Council, in their all-party endeavour, decided that they must act responsibly and see to it that counsel was engaged to make certain that they were acting within the law. I believe that the Greater Manchester City Council is to be complimented on its thoroughness. All the members of all the parties of that council are to be complimented on their thoroughness and are to be complimented on the sincerity of their endeavour.
While the law specifically allows local authorities to grant travel concessions to the elderly, blind and other disabled people, no such power is conferred to help the unemployed. I want to concede straight away that if we passed this Bill the scheme would not be mandatory. I have enough confidence in my fellow Britons who sit on similar councils in Scotland and South Wales as well as those of Manchester to believe that when they see how this scheme works they will want to know something about it and they will start implementing it.
When one weighs it up, what an admirable way to start a piece of legislation! What the Greater Manchester City Council have done is this. They have said "Let us not only be pioneers but let us have a pilot scheme. Let us find out the things which are wrong initially and then improve on it". That is an admirable way of working. All this work and endeavour, the moral and economic issues involved, cannot be indulged in unless Parliament give Greater Manchester City Council the right to act in this way.
I have said that there are in that area of Manchester alone 170,000 unemployed men and women. That is a very large number. It is a good pilot scheme. It is vital for us to know that it had absolute all-party support. It was a genuine response to the Secretary of State, Mr. Tebbit, and his advice for the unemployed to get out and look for work. He will agree that, rather than simply paying out the dole for doing nothing, we should give the unemployed another couple of bob to go searching around to find the work which he believed at the time was available. It will not solve the problem of unemployment. But people have been deterred—and quite rightly the Secretary of State wondered about this—by the cost of the quest. This scheme does away with that argument, and I think that the Secretary of State will agree with it.
Employers in the Greater Manchester area also agree. Not one employer has raised an objection against this idea. Not one of those employers has said

437
that this is a bad scheme. They can see the wisdom and the goodness that is in it. I believe that this House ought to do the same thing. The Greater Manchester City Council have an admirable pilot plan. I know that one can argue and say that it is only the people in Manchester who are going to get a help in the first place. That is perfectly true. But when they have been running the scheme a while, and if it is a success—as I am sure it will, be although they may want to make changes—they will be able to help all the other local authorities that may wish to join in. If we pass this little Bill it in no way makes the scheme mandatory. It is a challenge and it is such a good thing that others who examine it who are not coerced and told, "You have to do it", will say, "For the unemployed among us we shall want to do it". And what is wrong with that unless you have a built-in complete disregard for Great Britain's unemployed?
What this little Bill does is not merely, so to speak, putting our hands on our hearts; we are all concerned about the problems of the unemployed. This Bill makes a little contribution to show that concern in a practical way. I commend this Bill in the interests of our fellow countrymen—and we are talking about our fellow countrymen who are in the most unfortunate situation of all. These are the unemployed Britons who have had their pursuit of happiness nullified by the ogre of unemployment. I am of the firm belief that this Bill will make a small but essential contribution to making a reality of those wonderful words for the unemployed man or woman, "I have found a job!"
That can transform a family. It is remarkable that when a man gets back to work he is not merely earning his living but it raises his own morale and the morale of his family and relatives. Therefore I believe that this Bill is good for them and for their families. Also, it is good for Great Britain that we in this House should show such concern. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Molloy.)
11.57 a.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at the end to insert "this day six months".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. We all recognise the merits of the Bill which has been moved with such deep feeling for the unemployed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. We all recognise wherever we sit that the present scale of unemployment is the major problem in our country today. Much more difficult is to find the best way of curing this huge problem with all its individual tragedies. Let me leave no one in any doubt that my personal feelings—and I am sure everybody's feelings—are entirely with the noble Lord in his objective.
My objections to the Bill are entirely procedural. The Bill is virtually the same as Amendment No. 67 to the Transport Bill which we debated last Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved the amendment and explained its purposes although not
438
at the same length, detail and scale as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has just done. But after the debate, in which several noble Lords took part—incidentally, not the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, but he could have done so had he wished—my noble friend Lord Bellwin replied for the Government, explaining the various existing measures by which the DHSS and the MSC assist travel for this purpose. The assistance is fairly comprehensive. It is mainly in connection with seeking jobs, with taking training and with the initial phase of travelling to it when a man or a woman has been fortunate enough to get a new job. The assistance also goes beyond that in some categories. I am sure that from the Front Bench my noble friend Lord Lucas will explain these provisions in detail, and therefore I shall not take the time of the House in doing so. At the end of the debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had not secured all of his objectives, he recognised that he had achieved a good deal, and he said so. Accordingly, he withdrew his amendment to consider further whether he wished to return to the attack on Report stage.
So this matter is still currently under consideration within the ambit of the Transport Bill. This means that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in moving his Private Member's Bill today is asking the House to consider exactly the same point as the House considered on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill last week. Whatever the subject—even one which is felt about as deeply as this and is as cogently deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, even in these circumstances—repetition of business is really a misuse of the time of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I have to point out to the House that I could have had this Second Reading debate before the Transport Bill got here. I was asked to delay it by the Government Whips' Office and I co-operated. For co-operation, should I receive punishment? What sort of behaviour is that in your Lordships' House?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is right and that the Government Whips' Office was most grateful for his co-operation on this matter. But I think the fact remains that the issue was discussed and at the moment has been withdrawn for consideration by the Government; so that what my noble friend says also is right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think it would be useful if one pointed out at this stage that the Transport Bill was brought forward from the Commons on 2nd February and the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy was ordered to be printed on 10th November. It has been available for Second Reading as from a fortnight after 10th November. I think one should also say that one knows that the Government are determined to get the Transport Bill through without amendment. Therefore, for my noble friend Lord Molloy to proceed with his Bill at this stage is the only way that this matter can be properly considered.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, after that interesting interlude between the "usual channels" who do not usually fire off at each other in the House, I would only add that we are all well aware of what happens to Private Members' Bills. Many of us have moved them from time to time. We get the best consideration from whichever side forms the Government, but one has to accept at the end of the day that Private Members' business, however important it is, has to take second place to Government business. This means that from time to time one must give way and have one's business postponed. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in this particular case has had to put up with this two or three times. I have a great deal of sympathy for him. I have had some experience of Private Members' Bills myself. But the fact is that two wrongs do not make a right. If he has been unlucky in being asked to postpone business, it still does not justify his asking the House to repeat business which has been debated already, in which he could have taken part but in which he did not; and which is still to be debated on the Report stage. It really does not make sense to conduct business like that.
The fact is that while each of us has a responsibility to protect the rights of individual Peers to express their opinion and to use the machinery of the House to do so, equally we have a responsibility to protect the reputation and business of the House, and that responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as much as on the rest of us. Our business procedures here are very flexible but we do have some responsibility to see that the general flow of business is maintained. It is on this account that I feel great sympathy with the noble Lord for having these postponements of his Bill—and nobody could but feel sympathy for him with his deep feeling about the purpose of the Bill—nevertheless, this is repetition of existing business and therefore it ought not to go forward. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it; because if he refuses to do that I feel that, in the interests of the business of the House, I shall have no alternative but to press my amendment at the end of the debate.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's remarks about his sympathy with my noble friend, Lord Molloy, and his implication of seeming support of the principle of the Bill, will he be prepared to give his support to an amendment to the Transport Bill, an amendment which will achieve the results sought by my noble friend Lord Molloy?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, when the noble Lord has heard the Government's reply, he will be informed as to what now is the measure of aid. It does, in fact, go a very long way to meet the point which Lord Molloy has been putting before us. In my own judgment, it probably substantially satisfies it; but perhaps I should myself wish to reserve my opinion on this point until I hear the further debate which will take place on the Report stage of the Transport Bill—a debate in which no doubt Lord Sefton will wish to take part—to see whether there is a substantial area not covered when the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have given further consideration to it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord please give me a small answer to one small question? He is the author of a wrecking amendment. I have never realised that he was privy to what a Minister of the Crown was going to say. I am not so; but he said so. He asked us to listen to what the Minister says. He must know what the Minister is going to say. I do not think that that is fair.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is a point which has absolutely no relevance whatever. I have no idea of what he is going to say—well, I do have a pretty good idea because I have seen what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in answer to the amendment—which is the same as this Bill—which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved. If the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has not read Hansard of Thursday of last week, then he would not know; but, if he has read it, he will know the substance of what my noble friend Lord Lucas is going to say. That is what I know and what I suppose everybody else knows. There is no secret about it.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at the end to insert "this day six months".—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
12.7 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I rise warmly to support the Bill and simply to deplore the fact that an amendment of this kind has been brought in at this stage in regard to this Bill. I use the word "deplore" and therefore I must justify it. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for whom I have the greatest respect—I know of his great works in Surrey for the water boards—himself said that he would not be giving his reasons for that amendment until he had heard the Minister. He based his reasons upon a speech made last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. With the greatest of respect, speaking without that speech before me, I do not think, prima facie, that the time of this House has been wasted by proceeding with this Bill, and there is no duplication of business. That is my theme at this stage because I am uninstructed about, I do not know, what the Minister will say on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, gave me the impression (as he has given the noble Lord, Lord Molloy) that he knew what the Minister was going to say.
My Lords, we shall now proceed on the basis of this notable Bill put forward on the initiative of Lord Molloy, for which he is to be congratulated. I say that it is a notable Bill because it is going to help those caught in the hideous trap of unemployment who find it expensive and difficult financially genuinely to seek work. The adoption of this Bill in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has described, would in many instances give an incentive for many now unemployed and in despair to look for work. I use the word "hideous" in relation to unemployment and I feel I must justify using that word. The position of many men and women is hideous because they are forced, owing to their inability to travel to seek work because of the financial stress on their families due to lack of funds, to join a subsection of society where they are apparently useless and unwanted.

441
May I give your Lordships an instance of a one-parent family in my experience? There are young children and one adult who has gone around seeking work. He has run up bills and his mother is in despair about the cost of this situation. The moral effect upon this young man—and this scenario is duplicated in many places—is that he feels he cannot go seeking work now. He spends his time lolling about the house or in bed, wasting his life, because he feels that by going out to seek work and spending money on travel he will be depriving the rest of the family of their bread and their livelihood. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by giving instances of that kind but there are many, particularly of men, in the longer term of unemployment who, because of the cost of travelling, in rural areas or in city areas, give up.
This Bill would be an incentive to those who are genuinely going to seek work. It is not a costly Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, indicated, its costs would be set off by contributions to the transport organisations; and I am not going to involve myself in the details of administration. The Manchester Corporation—and I am aware of the part played by Liberal colleagues of mine in this research—consider that it is a project worth pursuing. Therefore, I speak strongly in favour of this Second Reading and I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will not press his amendment today.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, earlier this week talk about the benefits being given to the unemployed and to the disabled. Here we are dealing with people who are able-bodied and could do with a little bit of support when genuinely seeking employment. The amendment would seem to be counter to the expressed views, certainly of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who was sincerely putting forward the views that he did in winding up that great debate. I believe the Government would be very wrong to rely on this technical matter in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has suggested: that we are duplicating work on this very serious social question that is before the House.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will not press his amendment, for two reasons: first, because of the time factor to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred; and, secondly, because I have been misquoted as to what I said at the end of the debate on the amendment which I moved during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. I will read what I said on 3rd March at cols. 1281 and 1282:
"I will consider the points which the noble Lord has made, but we may want to come back to the general principle of assistance as regards social needs and as regards the needs to which reference has been made. My noble friend Lord Molloy will be coming back to this matter because he has a Private Member's Bill dealing with this very point. We may look at that and also at what has been said tonight and consider whether we shall have a suitable amendment on Report".
With those words, I withdrew the amendment. Naturally, if your Lordships support this Second Reading, as I hope you will, I will have to consider what to do on Report stage. We may still decide to put down an amendment on Report stage, bearing in mind that the Government may not find time for this Bill to
442
be debated anywhere else. Therefore, our options are still open; but my statement did not mean that we should not support this Bill today: in fact it said the contrary.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whom I am pleased is speaking today, questioned whether or not the Transport Bill—and I quote him from col. 1279—
"is an active vehicle to carry such a clause, irrespective of its merits".
Incidentally, I hope we are going to consider my noble friend's Bill on its merits and on nothing else. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, likewise questioned whether the amendment to the Transport Bill was the appropriate means to achieve the objective. Therefore, if the Transport Bill was not the proper place for my amendment, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy is the proper place for it, and so we have to consider that aspect.
It appeared in that debate—and I re-read it carefully last night—that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to a great extent misunderstood all the objectives of the amendment which I moved; and we may also be in danger of misunderstanding the objectives of my noble friend's Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was very sympathetic and he outlined all the provisions available for assisting travel for those seeking work and attending interviews. But on reading very carefully what the noble Lord said I find that he mentioned that these provisions are for claimants coming from the DHSS and they must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. So any person who is unemployed and not receiving supplementary benefit cannot get this assistance from the DHSS to attend interviews or to travel to seek work.
The noble Lord the Minister also referred to possible help from the Manpower Services Commission. All these matters may be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but they are irrelevant to the point of this Bill because for persons to be assisted under the MSC they must be unemployed or threatened with redundancy. They must be attending a definite job interview; so it is no good suggesting that someone may be paid for simply going somewhere to seek work. I am now quoting from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in cols. 1280 and 1281, where he said:
"The prospective employer must confirm a reasonable chance of success in the job application".
That is a very, very limited form of assistance. Therefore, over and above the points made by the Minister in reply to me, there are obviously big gaps even in assisting persons who want to seek work and travel for interviews.
In my reply to the noble Lord the Minister, I stressed that I was not only dealing with help to seek work or attend interviews but I was dealing with the other social needs of the unemployed, to assist them to visit relatives and friends. This morning I did not travel by car but travelled by Tube and the cost was £1·80 for a single fare for a journey of 15 miles to Westminster. What unemployed person could afford that to visit relatives with his wife? As I have mentioned before to your Lordships, I happen to support a football team which does not attract a very great attendance. The unemployed are admitted at specially reduced prices to watch my team, Leyton Orient—a good, friendly

443
club—but it costs them money to get there and I can assure your Lordships that within our catchment area the fare will be prohibitive for an unemployed man.
We are talking not only about assistance where the unemployed are not covered by the MSC or by the DHSS when seeking work and attending interviews, hut also about the social needs of the unemployed so that they will not be made to live like hermits because they cannot afford to travel. That is the basic justification for my noble friend's Bill.
In the light of what else was said in our previous debate at the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, I make it quite clear—if the Minister does not say it I will—that Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 states that these concessionary fares can be only in the area of the authority or the transport executive which is making the decision—and, as my noble friend said, the power is a permissive one and is not mandatory—or in areas adjacent to it. Therefore, someone travelling down from Manchester to London to get a job is not covered. Such a case will have to be covered by one of the other schemes, if it can be covered at all. Only travel in the area of the local authority, or in places adjacent to it, is covered.
Therefore for all those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will put aside procedural points. If I may say so, it is for me to decide whether I will come back at Report stage, in the light of the discussion today and in the light of whatever timetable the Government promise this Bill, if it gets a Second Reading today—which I hope it will. Because the Bill is permissive, because it will affect not only the schemes which I am certain the Minister will tell us about today—the DHSS and the MSC schemes, which are very limited—and because of the need to ensure that the unemployed can live like the rest of us, and travel in their areas on a social needs basis, I hope that your Lordships will give support to my noble friend's Bill and will reject the amendment.
12.22 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has a worthy dream, but I fear that it is a dream of Utopia. There are so many groups who, in an ideal world, we should all like to help—and in the context of the noble Lord's Bill I am speaking of financial help. But, in the hard world of reality, where should the line be drawn? With only so much public money available, what criteria should be used to decide who might have the best claim for assistance by way of free travel? Well, my Lords, so far so good, from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and, from one aspect, it is a view which I share. Obviously, unemployed people in search of jobs have to travel in order to be intervieved. Equally obviously they cannot, in many cases, afford the price of the bus or train fare.
From earlier speeches in this debate, it seems that I may well be robbing my noble friend the Minister of his speech—because I do not know what he is going to say. But, if I may have the temerity to take up your Lordships' time by recalling what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said on 3rd March, about the circumstances in which assistance with travel costs is
444
available to the unemployed from the DHSS, I shall now do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has picked bits out of the speech of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Perhaps I may return to what he said. It is true that claimants must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. Assistance is given to attend interviews more than 10 miles from home if the person in question is not receiving help from any other source. If the DHSS arranges an interview within 10 miles of home, help can be obtained. Travel help will be extended up to a maximum of 14 days, if the person gets the job but has to wait for his or her first pay cheque. Unemployed people who are doing very worthwhile voluntary jobs under Government schemes can have their fares paid. This is not part of what the Minister said. Lastly—to return to what he said—interview expenses covering travel can be obtained from the MSC's job search scheme.
I am convinced that the Government already appreciate that people may, and do, have to travel to find suitable jobs. Provision already exists to provide not only assistance with travel expenses but, sometimes, subsistence allowances for all that is involved in seeking work, and, if the applicant is successful, assistance is also available for moving home to another area. It is possible that, when the Report stage of the Transport Bill is discussed, more discretionary help may be found to be available. But I believe that the Government's attitude is sensible and caring.
I admire the spirit and deep feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has displayed in presenting his Bill. I share those feelings. But in this case, and for the reasons I have given, I must part company with the noble Lord and I shall support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent if he presses it to a Division.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is it not a misconception to suggest that this Bill as drafted is appropriate to implement the "Get on your bike" exhortation of my right hounourable friend? With your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may put aside procedural questions, because I should be out of my depth on them, and, in no way challenging any assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to what was said, or not said, on a previous occasion, accept the noble Lord's challenge to try to deal with this matter on the merits?
Why is this Bill not appropriate to implement that exhortation? At the outset, I wish to associate myself with the concept that registered unemployed persons who travel in search of employment should receive reimbursement of all travel expenses incurred by them, irrespective of whether or not they are in receipt of supplementary benefit. In that context, from my personal point of view, the present state of the law is not wholly satisfactory, because the MSC grant is limited to those in receipt of supplementary benefit and not the ordinary benefit.
But, having said that and coming to the merits of the Bill as regards the unemployed, your Lordships will no doubt observe on objective examination that it fails to

445
limit concessionary travel to the purpose of seeking employment under such schemes as the Manchester scheme, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. This is important, because, if your Lordships will be good enough to bear with me and to follow the Bill, bearing in mind that you will have read the master Act onto which it is to be tacked, what has happened is as follows.
The principle of this Bill is really objectionable, in that it seeks to equate the status of the elderly, the blind and the disabled, who are in the master Act, and who, rightly, by virtue of that status qualify for concessionary travel irrespective of the purpose of the travel, with the status of the unemployed and those employed on youth opportunities schemes, without limitation as to purpose. This is a crucial defect in the tacking-on process, which confuses status with purpose and wholly fails to implement my right honourable friend's concept of the "Get on your bike" principle.
If your Lordships will allow me just one or two more minutes—Friday is not a day on which to bore your Lordships—there is one matter which on objective examination I feel I ought to draw to your Lordships' attention, if you have, at least, followed the approach to the proposed statute so far. This has rightly been said by other noble Lords to be permissive. That breeds disparity of treatment, because it may be implemented here but may not be implemented there. And it may be implemented here in a way in which it is not implemented there. If it is implemented, there is no control whatsoever under the Bill to prevent abuse at the expense of the ratepayer. Furthermore, if widely implemented, the system of control under the Transport Bill could, with some 3 million unemployed, be detrimentally affected. It is not appropriate to repeat what was said last week about the Transport Bill. I seek respectfully to draw only that aspect of the matter to your Lordships' attention.
If this process of reasoning should commend itself to your Lordships as a fair and objective examination of the proposed statute, would it not follow that one should reject the concept of the Bill but support the concept of the amendment? Should we not all agree on the principle at stake?—that, subject to reasonable control, the unemployed who are seeking work should be reimbursed for their expenses and that to that end further consideration should be given by the Government to the point which I sought to raise about the bar—unless one is receiving supplementary benefit, perhaps. Having made that suggestion, I most earnestly suggest to your Lordships that this Bill is not a fair or an appropriate means of implementing "Get on your bike".
12.32 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I should not have intervened but for the fact that we have now heard three speeches from the other side, all of which have expressed sympathy for the contents and the principle of the Bill. Indeed, in one particular case the speaker went much further. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said quite clearly that he agreed with the principle that the unemployed should be assisted in travelling to look for work, regardless of their status in other ways—for
446
instance, that they are receiving supplementary benefit. That I find to be very refreshing. It underlines what I have been told over many years is the hallmark of this Chamber: the ability of both sides to talk about principles and to say whether or not they agree with them, regardless of party standing. I welcome with great sincerity what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
However, at the end of his speech the noble Lord said that this Bill is not an appropriate way in which to achieve that aim. But this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the matter. If this Bill receives its Second Reading, I have been well advised that there is nothing at all to prevent noble Lords from putting into the Bill during the Committee stage all the kinds of control that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wants. That would apply to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who moved the amendment. Nobody has so far disagreed with the principle of the Bill, though I have no doubt that somebody will do so later. As I understand the procedure of this House—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The principle with which we are in agreement is, I submit, incapable of fair reflection in this Bill. When, therefore, the noble Lord said that I am in agreement with the principle of the Bill, that is, alas!, just what I am not. I am in agreement with the principle with which I said I was in agreement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be moving back from his previous statement, but I shall read with interest in Hansard what the noble Lord has said and see whether I can reconcile his statements. But even taking the noble Lord's last statement, that he does not necessarily agree with the principle of the Bill, because even then it would not be possible to achieve the method of control which he believes should be achieved by it, what on earth is wrong about giving a Second Reading to the Bill and then trying to achieve that objective at the Committee stage? I cannot, for the life of me, understand what procedure would prevent those on the other side who have spoken from achieving that objective at the Committee stage. What, therefore, is quite clear is that a refusal to give a Second Reading to this Bill by any noble Lords in this House means that they do not care about the principle of assisting the unemployed.
12.36 p.m.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I had not intended to join in the debate, but I feel compelled to do so. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that on the whole Private Members' Bills should give way to Government business. I quite agree, too, that at certain times and in certain circumstances, particularly in this House, the head should bend a little toward the heart. My head usually tends to go with the Government. Today my heart goes with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Unless certain things are said during the next five or 10 minutes which manage to change my heart, I shall vote for the Bill.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I, too, should like to say that I shall be voting for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, unless the speaker who is to wind up can persuade me otherwise. I shall do so on the principle that we must do all we can to prevent men or women from feeling that they are not human. If that means sacrifice for the rest of us, we must be prepared for it. As another speaker has already pointed out, any defects which there may be in this short Bill could be ironed out and put right at Committee stage. Let us give some hope to the unemployed. Those of us who live in rural areas know how costly travelling can be if we are lucky enough to be in a job, and for those in rural areas who are out of a job travelling can be very costly indeed. Let us therefore try not only to reason with the head but also to have a little warmth, heart and spirit. Surely it would not mean any doubling up with anything which will be in the Transport Bill.
12.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the procedural point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. If we follow purely matters of procedure, the type of Second Reading speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and others in the course of this morning's proceedings would have been ruled out of order at Committee stage of the Transport Bill. Furthermore, the multiple speeches that have been made and the cut and thrust across the Floor of this House would equally have been out of order at Report stage. In a sense, the introduction of this Bill has by-passed our normal procedures so far as the Transport Bill is concerned. As such, I do not believe that it is a wise use of the time of this House. I am spending a Friday morning that I could have spent in other ways in discharging my duties by listening to this point. I believe that we should support the point of principle made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford; not because the head is ruling the heart but because we must learn to be economical with parliamentary time so far as we can.
The noble Lord's Private Bill has not a chance of survival in the Commons, introduced as late as this in the Lords without Government support. If it is not to receive Government support in this House, then it will not get it in the other place and it will not get on to the statute book this year. Surely a better course of action for the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is to wait and see what emerges from successive stages of the Transport Bill, and then he will be free to introduce his Private Bill at the next Session, to smooth out whatever deficiencies there may be in the Transport Bill as it leaves both Houses. This is purely an intervention on the subject of procedure and I hope that your Lordships will accept it as such.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, sits down, I hope he will recall that this Bill was introduced on 10th November last, a few days after this Session began.
The Earl of Halsbury: With respect, my Lords, that has nothing to do with it, because if this Bill now goes to another place it will not get through Committee
448
stage in time to get on to the statute book without Government assistance, which it does not look like getting.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I believe that the procedural point has been completely dealt with by my noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston and I do not propose going any further into that matter, except to say that procedural points should not be allowed to undermine principles. We are on the Second Reading of a Bill, and Second Reading is, by convention, dealing with the principles of the Bill. I should like to make it absolutely clear to everyone in this House that anybody who votes against this Bill or who abstains from voting is casting a vote against the principle of subsidising the travel fares of the unemployed. As has been said, any details can be discussed at Committee stage, and will certainly be discussed in another place.
I welcome very warmly the cross-House and cross-party expressions of support for this principle. However, there are one or two points which have not been made in this debate so far. At one time the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, appeared to give the impression that this Bill was the personal possession of my noble friend Lord Molloy and all we were really discussing was whether we should be kind to my noble friend or not. That is not the case, and my noble friend Lord Molloy would be the last person to wish it to be the case.
In my view, this Bill should have come from the Government. It should have come from the Government on the basis of the Government's policy. Is it recognised that, on the one hand, from the Government's own figures, there are more than 3 million unemployed; but that, on the other hand, there are 300,000 advertised jobs vacant? We know that normally the number of advertised jobs vacant represents only one-third of the total number of jobs vacant, which would produce a figure of something like 900,000 jobs vacant. Surely it is common sense for the Government to want to get these two together.
How can they do so? We have been hearing about the provision under the DHSS for the assistance of travel for the disabled. The unemployed are disabled; they are disabled from working. They are disabled from earning a sufficient wage to keep their families in ordinary decency. A family of a couple with two children who receive £41·05 unemployment pay a week is disabled. If the Government are sincere in their desire to reduce unemployment and to give the unemployed the opportunity of taking the jobs which are available—the numbers of which may be disputed but the advertised number is 300,000, so the total number is certainly more than that—then surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that people who are unemployed today are given every opportunity and encouragement, without having to sacrifice the interests of their families in seeking those jobs. That is the principle we are discussing in this Bill, irrespective of what happens at Report stage of the Transport Bill.
I have one final point. This issue is really one of principle—and one that will be of concern to the whole of this country for the rest of this century. It is virtually a platitude today to point out that if we are to restore the industrial power of this country, then workers

449
must be prepared to seek other jobs, to receive further training, and to move their homes and their families; and that it is imperative that there should be a great deal more mobility of labour than has been traditional in this country. That will be possible only if the workers themselves are assisted in their search for those jobs.
As one who comes from the North of England, I would ask Ministers who are responsible for this policy to go anywhere north of the Trent and just to talk with and listen to the people there, to learn just how many people are so desperate today that they are taking any form of transport they can find in looking for jobs which they hear are available. Jobs are available, and if your Lordships have seen on television each week the maps of lay-offs on the one hand and new jobs being created on the other hand, you will appreciate that people are trying to get to those areas where new jobs are being created. But it is the responsibility of the Government to give them every assistance to do so.
12.48 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the start of this debate, but from the five speeches I have heard it seems that the sympathy of this House, from all sides, is very largely for those who want free transport when they are genuinely seeking jobs. I am sure that the vast majority of your Lordships would support that. But as I read this Bill—unless the lawyers can tell me that I am completely wrong—it will mean creating virtually a universal pass enabling people to go anywhere at any time provided that they are unemployed, and will put the bill at the door of British Rail or Her Majesty's Government, who will probably have to pay the subsidy. Are we really to find that if people want to go from Glasgow to Wembley for the Cup Final we are going to pay their fares?
Noble Lords: No, no!
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Are we going to find that we pay because somebody in Middlesbrough might have an opportunity of staying with a relative in Devon when he has been divorced from the area where he might be seeking employment? I would agree that the unemployed should get their voucher for anywhere where they want to go to seek a job. I would one hundred per cent. support that. But I do not agree that we should lay ourselves wide open to abuse for people to ride all over the country wherever they like at the taxpayers' expense.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I correct the position? I made quite clear in my remarks that Section 138 of the 1968 Act, which this Bill proposes to amend, applies only to journeys within the area of the local authority giving the concessions or adjacent areas. If a county decided to give the concession it would be in the area of that county. If a PTE decided to give assistance it would be in the area of the PTE or adjoining areas. The Bill would enable the unemployed to have concessionary fares of whatever kind the local authority wished, it does not necessarily mean free travel. They would get a concession up to the level decided by the local
450
authority. But we would wish—I think the amendment we propose would involve this—that it would not just cover travel to work but enable the unemployed person to visit friends and take part in social life.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, if this is confined to the area for seeking work that would be less than I would wish. If somebody was living in Middlesbrough and had an opportunity of a job in London, I would rather support him having the right to a free fare to London to be interviewed for that job, than the freedom to go anywhere. The division between us is not that the unemployed should not be given every opportunity to seek work, anywhere in the country, with a free voucher; but I do think we are laying ourselves wide open to abuse when it is suggested that, even confined to the area—the noble Lord has corrected me and I apologise for my error—the concession should include other purposes. That still lays us open to abuse. Let them have a wider area, provided they are job seeking.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I intervene with three sentences. In the first place, I have no interest to declare. It is 71 years since I entered full-time employment; I was never unemployed. This Bill is to help people to get work. That is surely a very worthy cause and deserves to be supported. When we talk about paying some of the expenses which people incur in trying to get work, we have to bear in mind that we get our own fares paid by the State when we come to work here.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, noble Lords from both sides of the House this morning have drawn attention to the difficulties facing the unemployed and some have argued the case for assistance through the kind of concessionary fare scheme envisaged in the Bill. My colleagues in Government have no difficulty in recognising the conviction with which those views are held. Neither are my colleagues less concerned at the plight of the unemployed than any other noble Lord in your Lordships' House. It is a matter of concern. But we have to ask ourselves: is subsidy for travel the best way of helping those who are out of work? Can the very considerable demands which such subsidies would make on national resources be justified, in terms either of transport policies or indeed of social welfare?
Certainly in so far as transport policies are concerned, I suggest we have to look most closely at any case which argues that what we need are more subsidies for transport. It is no secret—we went over this last week—that the Government have been deeply concerned about escalating costs of revenue support for public passenger transport and the subsidy that applies to that transport. That is why in the Bill now before Parliament we seek to ensure that the case for subsidy is properly presented and thoroughly scrutinised before any decisions are taken as to the level of support. In one respect, of course, there is no doubt that the unemployed do have this particular problem of meeting expenses incurred when travelling in search of a job.

451
I had not intended to repeat what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said a week ago, but since there appears to be some confusion among some speakers this morning I regret that I think I ought again to spell out exactly what he said. Those seeking help for travelling expenses can be and are assisted under two schemes: first, from the DHSS, and certainly the eligibility is that the claimant must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. This was a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who agreed with him. I take close note of what noble Lords said in that regard.
The benefit offered is assistance towards travelling expenses; first, to seek work in another area of Great Britain if there is a reasonable prospect of finding a job there; and, secondly, if the claimant is successful and would have to move house; thirdly, if he or she is not eligible for assistance from the MSC. Additionally, through the DHSS, there is assistance to attend interviews more than 10 miles from home, and when seeking a job within 10 miles of home if interview arrangements have been made by the DHSS; and when starting a new job, until the first wages are received, to a maximum of 14 days' benefit. In addition, any person receiving supplementary benefit is eligible for assistance with fares for hospital visiting, journeys arising from domestic issues—children in hospital, children in the custody of another parent, and so on.
Then from the MSC under the job search scheme interview expenses are paid. There the eligibility is that claimants must be unemployed or threatened with redundancy; they must be attending a definite job interview; the prospective employer must confirm a good chance of success in the job application; there must be no expenses contribution available from the employer; and there must be no reasonable job prospect in the home area, and no suitable unemployed person in the area where the job is available. The benefits offered there are fares and subsistence for pre-arranged interviews. At that time my noble friend Lord Bellwin omitted to tell your Lordships that the MSC also assists Youth Opportunity Programme trainees by meeting any costs of travel to a place of employment in excess of £4 a week.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who quoted cols. 1280–81 in our debate last week, and he will, I am quite sure, agree with me that my noble friend at that time did say he would take note of what was said and would consider it. So in no way, notwithstanding anything that I might have to say, have the Government closed the door on any of these matters. The Government have made provision in the way that I have just described, through the DHSS and the MSC, for expenses incurred when one is actually looking for work.
The Bill now before your Lordships seeks to go very much beyond this and it includes unemployed persons and those working under the opportunities programme among those for whom local authorities have the power to provide concessionary fares under the 1960 Act. The position at present is that all county
452
and district councils, including the metropolitan counties and the GLC, have specific powers under that section to provide concessionary fares for the elderly and the disabled. The principal objection to this Bill is that it would have very considerable consequences for public expenditure. Free bus travel across the board for the unemployed in metropolitan areas alone would cost about £90 million. It must also be remembered that the other groups, such as single parent families, the lower paid, and a great many groups of people might then be able to make similar claims for special consideration.
The 1968 Act gives local authorities the power to provide concessions for three groups: those over pensionable age—65 for men and 60 for women—the blind and those suffering from disabilities or injuries. These groups are clearly and closely defined and it would be generally accepted that local authorities should have the power to provide those groups with concessions.
But not all local authorities have made use of the power, which illustrates the fact that some authorities feel that their powers under the Act to give assistance to the aged, the blind and the disabled are better served in other areas. So, because Section 138 of the 1960 Act applies, it does not necessarily follow that all authorities feel that that is the best way to give assistance. The particular instances that come to mind are those authorities who provide assistance through meals-on-wheels or home helps, and it is particularly true in areas where public transport is limited and the concessionary fare benefit would not generally apply because of the lack of transport.
The Government have no doubt that authorities should have the power to provide fares for these groups, and they believe that that is the best way of helping them. This was made quite clear when doubts were cast on the powers of the GLC to provide such fares, and the response was shown in the Travel Concessions (London) Act 1982. However, the Government believe that it is possible to draw a valid distinction between those who are unemployed and those who are eligible for concessions under the Act. If we extend those categories under the 1968 Act we immediately come up against the wider questions of social welfare and the priorities to which I referred earlier. We are then faced with the great difficulty of finding criteria for deciding between all the different groups which might have claims, I have referred to some of those.
We have spent, and are spending, over £700 million a year on subsidies in public transport to help keep fares at an acceptable level. We have said during the course of the Transport Bill that a control has to be exercised on the level of subsidy. Acceptance of the noble Lord's Bill would release certain elements of that control because that would make it possible for local authorities to make use of the Bill to provide some concessionary fares on public transport, but only in their own areas and only on transport services for which they have some responsibility.
In response to the point raised by some noble Lords—particularly, I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—of travelling longer distances outside local authority and PTE areas, the Bill would not, in fact, make it possible for assistance to be given. It might be

453
helpful to remind your Lordships that there are a number of bus operators who have found that it actually pays to provide reduced fares for the unemployed. They have found that it pays on purely commercial grounds. The increase in ridership cancels out the cost of fare reductions. The Government welcome such schemes wholeheartedly and encourage the hope that others may be inspired to follow that example. I suppose that in those areas of very high unemployment where the necessity to move across the area in seeking work is greatest there may very well be a good case to persuade the PTEs that there is a commercial advantage to be gained by giving such assistance. The Government's view is that such schemes are justified, but certainly only if they cover their costs.
I should perhaps return to the main point. The fact is quite simply that the Government do not believe that concessionary fare schemes of the kind envisaged in the Bill and outlined by some noble Lords are the best way of helping the unemployed. On the contrary, and in the long run, the Government believe that this can only serve to push up rates and taxes, thus putting even more jobs at risk, and that is not the way to the kind of recovery that the unemployed really need. Nor does it represent a sensible priority for the use of the resources that are available for the full and proper development of public transport. Were it not for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford I would have advised the House to reject the Bill. As it is, I suggest that our total interests would be better served if we support the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain something to me? Perhaps I am simple minded, but he seemed to be contradicting himself. On the one hand he was saying that the scheme in my noble friend's Bill would cost £90 million in the metropolitan area and, on the other hand, he said that he is in favour of concessionary schemes where they cover themselves. What does he mean in saying that the scheme will cost £90 million? If the unemployed are able to travel on a bus where there are seats vacant, what is it costing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, can stand there and ask me that question. He did not have the courtesy to put his name down, which is quite customary in your Lordships' House for Second Reading debates, and then he asks me that question. I am happy to answer the noble Lord, but I merely draw the attention of the House to that practice. There is no contradiction. Concessionary fares that are worked out by PTEs with their local authorities and that are self-financing are to be commended. Were we not to have that kind of arrangement—in other words, if we have an additional subsidy—we estimate that a further £90 million might be required in subsidy.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I deeply and most sincerely regret that because of the cheating and the chicanery of the Government Front Bench and the Government's Whips' Office a bitterness has crept into this debate. Let me say to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—he has
454
left the Chamber, so perhaps someone will tell him—that his real charge against me was this: "You fool, you co-operated with the Government in the Government's Whips' Office. You put back your Bill week after week at the Tories' request. Of course they will cheat you and therefore we have no patience with you." That is my crime.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords—
Lord Molloy: No, my Lords, I have too much to say. It is my turn now.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I just wanted to say to the noble Lord opposite that we have discussed this matter before and we have spent a lot of time on it. The noble Lord has made a very good case and a very good point, pray do not spoil it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that contribution. But when you have lived a tough life and have never lost faith in your nation, despite the temptations of other hideous philosophies which you have fought, and you come to a House like this and think that you can be subjected to the type of behaviour to which I am being subjected, then I find it distasteful. Surely everyone knows full well that the Government lacked the guts to get up and say that they were against the Bill. They got the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to do it and he slipped up because he told us almost what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to say. Is that the behaviour of the gentlemen of England? I am glad I do not belong to your club because that is highly distasteful.
Then there was the mix-up between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, quite honestly said—and I have never known him to speak any other way; I want to put that on record—that he disagreed that this was merely a procedural Bill. He dismissed that view. So he cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can he?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy. But to get the record straight, I just confessed frankly to the House that I did not understand the procedure and, therefore, I would not deal with it. I accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for whom I have unbounded respect, that I should try to deal with it on the merits. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful indeed to the noble Lord for that explanation, which I accept fully without any question.
I now turn to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made fairly and justly. Where was I when the amendment was put down? I think that that is a fair question and I believe that your Lordships are entitled to an answer. I do not know quite how I would have dealt with it but I would have found a way. However, it behoves me to give your Lordships a reason.
As your Lordships know, my Bill was put down many months ago and was delayed and delayed. That is my responsibility for agreeing. But what

455
happened—and I am quite sure that it has happened to all of us—was that other engagements came along. I had an engagement which I never dreamt would clash with that particular part of the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. Even now, when I come to give an explanation it will not do me any good. However, I will give an explanation. I was invited, as I have been for very many years, to go to the 155th annual dinner of University College London Union Debating Society. At that dinner they had the standard debate which they have been debating for 155 years and I was quite privileged to go along and participate. Incidentally, the subject for debate is always: That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I went along and they announced the result of the election of an honorary president. That college is known to be a college right of centre, but to their credit and to my great joy, I was elected the honorary president of that London college union debating society. Then they crowned it at the end of the day by voting for me and supporting the proposition: That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. That is what I meant when I said that when I tell the truth it still will not do me any good. I really think that it would have been better if the Government had come straight and said that they were again the Bill, and not used the idea of delaying it for six months by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that I had a dream. I have had dreams all my life. The dreams of my life have been to eradicate from mankind, and certainly from my nation, all things evil and distasteful. So the noble Baroness puts me in the same category as a dreamer as Martin Luther King—all I hope is that I do not get bumped off too soon. The noble Baroness also mentioned the cost. Let me say to the noble Baroness very gently that people talk and they will say, "What sort of folk are they? They argue and they talk about giving us a few pounds to go and look for a job and then they offer Mr. MacGregor another £1 million to come and take on a job elsewhere which they gave him in the first place". I do not want to bring this matter into the argument, but I am trying to appeal to your Lordships to listen to what goes on outside, which does none of us in this Chamber any good. Therefore, I believe that we must look very seriously at all these matters.
As I have explained, the issue of fraud has been covered as much as is humanly possible by the Greater Manchester City Council. The Conservative councillors worked as hard as any of the other councillors in pushing this forward. They have telephoned me and spoken to me and urged me. There was no feeling of partisan politics until the matter came to this House. That hurts me much more than any regret can because I feel that we could have taken their example. Those councillors belong to the party opposite, to my party, to the party of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and to the SDP. They are the people so near the scene and they found a unity. I hope that we can too.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, this issue is not about measures and constitutional issues;
456
it is about men, our countrymen. Therefore, I believe that that is a reason for supporting it. I could understand to a degree the submission of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. But if this Bill went into Committee I could show her the complicated plan which I have—reams and reams of it—which gives almost a guarantee that the limits of the areas to which every local authority would have to adhere would be acceptable to all parties in both Houses of this Parliament, as much as it was totally acceptable to all parties in the Greater Manchester City Council. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I am still one of those who were brought up as a Welsh Baptist/Methodist who still happens to believe that compassion will cure more sins than condemnation. It is a lovely little pilot scheme in which they are going to indulge and from which the whole nation can learn. Despite all that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, I at least implore your Lordships not to go with him all the way.
This is a poignant issue against people who at this moment, at almost 1.20 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, have their heads in their hands or have just come back from not being able to get a job. They are fighting the arguments that we fought when we were told in the mid-thirties that this country was finished. We said, "No way". There was no Parliament in those days to assist us. I would never have believed that I would be saying this, but I am going to say it. Perhaps the best friend that the unemployed could have could be this Chamber, this House of Lords. That is good for Britain, good for this Chamber, good for the unemployed and good for the principles of good standards of life and acknowledgment of our parliamentary procedure. I make my pleas as humbly as I can. Whatever little doubts your Lordships may have, we will have an opportunity to clear them up in Committee. But I ask your Lordships to unite this Friday afternoon on behalf of our less fortunate Britons and give this Bill a Second Reading.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we have all listened with interest and sympathy to the noble Lord's moving speech. He regretted that a note of bitterness should have come into the debate; so do I, but it did not come from this side. There is just one point on that which I should like to make. It was a charge made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that any opponent of the Bill was an opponent of the travel concessions for the unemployed. That, of course, is totally wrong. If the noble Lord has listened to my noble friend the Minister, Lord Lucas, he will know—and all noble Lords who heard it will know—that there is quite a range of assistance. It is possible—it may even be probable—that something more needs to be done in that particular field. But one thing which is absolutely clear is that this is not the right Bill in which to do it, because this Bill will be tacked on to Section 138 of the 1968 Act, where it does not fit particularly well because that section is particularly for the assistance of the elderly and disabled. Therefore, technically, the use of this Bill is not necessarily the right way in which to achieve the excellent ends for which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has so eloquently pleaded.

457
I would ask him to accept that because we do not entirely agree with him on this side, it does not mean that we are not equally interested in and equally devoted to the cause with which he is concerned, which is to relieve the nation of this major problem of a very large number of unemployed. We all are. I shall not go on any longer, we have debated too long on this already. I wish to press my amendment.
1.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Molson, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Collison, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Molloy, L.[Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gainford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Segal, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Spens, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
1.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This
458
Bill has already twice passed your Lordships' House through all stages; last year and the year before. I am now submitting this Bill for the favourable consideration of the House for the third time. The father of this Bill was the originator and sponsor of the principal Act 1951, the late Sir Ronald Russell, who was Conservative Member of Parliament for Wembley, South. After a struggle of years he managed to get the 1951 Act on the statute book. That Act has remained unamended for 32 years. It is the law at present and it requires those who carry on the business of selling pet animals to do so under licence granted by the local authority. The selling of pet animals is permissible under the Act only when conducted in a shop, or from a barrow or stall set up in an authorised street market. The Act prohibits the sale of animals as pets from any other place, with certain exceptions made in the case of recognised breeders of pedigree animals.
Sixteen years after the principal Act became law Sir Ronald Russell, watching it in operation, came to the conclusion that it needed strengthening. He introduced an amending Bill, and that is the Bill before your Lordships' House now. Although the minimum conditions for the health and welfare of animals exposed for sale in open markets were prescribed in the Act the problems of enforcement were formidable and almost insuperable. Although the conditions looked pretty good on paper, in practice, in all weathers, under all conditions, they simply did not apply. By 1969 Sir Ronald Russell made his first attempt to introduce this Bill. He tried three times to do so but his health broke down, he had to leave the House of Commons, and he died shortly after he left in 1974. I revived this Bill, his Bill, three years ago.
Nine years after he finally gave up I hope to crown his efforts and bring about this change, which is long overdue. I realise that this is a Private Member's Bill. I realise too that even though it may pass all stages in your Lordships' House it may not find a place, or the time, to complete its passage through Parliament. I can only turn my attention for the moment then to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who I see on the Bench opposite, and who had the experience of piloting a Private Member's Bill on animals through this House, which I envied at the time and I envy still. His Bill went through this House and the other place on the wings of a dove, and I hope to borrow those wings this afternoon. The Government can do things even through the machinery of the Private Member's Bill when they set their minds to it. It is only when their minds are not engaged in the matter that the procedures of obstruction and frustration operate to disappoint any achievement.
The noble Lord is in a position this afternoon to lend a helping hand, and I think that a fellow feeling should make him wondrous kind. I am not by nature a persistent person. I hate to become either a nuisance or a bore, and one cannot go on trying to get this kind of reform year after year without making any progress. It is this kind of frustration which leads to so many militant attitudes among those who are heavily engaged in this work of animal care outside. However, I am in the happy position of reporting two things which help me this afternoon. One is that the open market in London known as Club Row, which was the centre of a great deal of criticism and a great deal of

459
attention in previous debates, is on the way out. The Tower Hamlets borough council, stimulated by an influx of Liberal councillors, have now grasped this nettle of Club Row, and they have already decided that they will grant no fresh licences and not renew any licences after July of this year. Unless the stallholders, or others, seek to get an inquiry set up by the Secretary of State for the Envirnment, then the council's decision will become effective.
That is good news. It means that the Tower Hamlets borough council have done what Parliament has not done for them. They took the view earlier that if it came to dealing with the closing of a market and there was a general feeling that markets of this kind should be closed, it is better that Parliament should decide and not leave it to local authorities to deal individually with their own problems. However, we are now in a position to follow the example of Tower Hamlets borough council and decide that other markets shall be closed. There are about 20 others up and down the country, and I shall say something about them in a moment.
The second development which is encouraging is the measure of public opinion on this subject, among others, which was studied on behalf of the RSPCA last year. This was a deeper study than is usually obtained through Gallup polls and public opinion polls. It was an inquiry into the attitudes of the public on different matters affecting animals. An attempt was made to relate one cause with another so that people could express some kind of priority as to what they thought needed to be done first. The outcome of this survey showed that 73 per cent. of those interviewed approved of the elimination of the sale of pets in street markets. That compares with very high percentages also for other problems affecting animals, and a very high percentage in favour of raising the dog licence fee to £5, for example, in order to enable dog warden schemes to be introduced to facilitate much better control of the stray dog problem, which still remains for attention.
There are strong feelings about fox hunting and hare coursing too, but what it shows is that when public opinion is consulted on matters affecting animals there is a strong feeling running throughout the country over a wide area, which is probably different from that which one finds within the precincts of Parliament. Parliament is the only place where these things will be done, although I have great difficulty in convincing many activists in the animal welfare and protection movement that they should give their attention to Parliament. I am bound to report that some scornful things are said about Parliament among young people today, who feel that it is not responsive to them and that it is ineffectual and slow moving.
After all, look how many years it has taken for me to be where I am this afternoon, pleading, in 1983, for something to be done that Ronald Russell asked to be done in 1969—exactly the same thing in exactly the same conditions. That is what is so frustrating. However, people will have the opportunity of bringing their views on animals before parliamentary candidates at the next election, and I fully believe that that will be done on an effective and rather surprising scale.
460
On this particular problem, public opinion is appalled at the number of stray dogs and feral cats, and pets in the households of the great mass of the public that are becoming waifs and strays on the urban scene, with the great deal of hardship and cruelty that is bound to ensue. It leads to the conclusion that we need to discourage, by all the means we have, thoughtless pet ownership—impulsive buying, indulging children too lightly and that sort of thing—because there is far too much irresponsible acquisition of animals and irresponsible ownership.
Markets are a temptation we want to remove. Those who are going to buy animals should deliberate about it, undertake it in a deliberate manner, understanding what they are doing and taking guidance. The market stall is not the place for that. Very often it is the place where a trader persuades a passer-by to buy an animal he or she is not seeking and does not really want. Other countries have banned the selling of pet animals in open markets and the time has come for us to do the same. There are about 20 of these markets left. They are to be found, for example, in Cardiff, Doncaster, Newcastle, South Shields, St. Albans, Watford, Nottingham and Chelmsford.
I have with me some lengthy reports on conditions in the cattle market in Nottingham, where pets are on sale, and in Chelmsford. They have been given close attention by Society officers, but I will not try the patience of the House by quoting from them. These conditions are typical of what we found at Club Row, and they are very similar everywhere—animals out in the open, stalls of, in many cases, doubtful quality and protection against weather conditions and that kind of thing. I have seen it for myself. On bitterly cold days one feels extremely sorry for animals, especially young animals, that are pulled around, put on view and put back in baskets to protect them from the weather. And the health of animals bought under those conditions can be very uncertain indeed.
The great volume of opinion now is in favour of doing something decisive about it. Since the Act was originally passed—indeed, since Ronald Russel dealt with it in 1969—the growth of pet shops has surely rendered open market sales unnecessary. Many of the proprietors of pet shops have stalls in markets; they are just using what retail outlets they can get and feel that they must be there if others are there. Looking at the people who had licences in Club Row, one found they were pet shop owners. They were, as it were, in a network; many of them were related and quite a number of family concerns were involved. Therefore we are not dealing with the casual trader; he is a licensed person with an interest which enables him to prosper. So we need not feel we are robbing people of their livelihood. I am sure that will not be the case anywhere; they will have and do have other opportunities of selling the animals they have.
I sincerely hope your Lordships will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading, for the third time, but I hope for more than that. I sincerely hope that the Bill can this time be taken seriously by the Minister on behalf of the Government so that we may see whether we can make some progress after all this time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
1.46 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if I understood my noble friend aright, this is the fourth time that a measure of this kind has been introduced in Parliament. The third time was during the last Session, about a year ago, when it was introduced by my noble friend in this House. We must admire his persistence and tenacity, although he was modest enough to disclaim this. I am glad to say that I strongly support the Bill and agree with everything he said.
As my noble friend reminded us, since the last occasion on which this subject was debated there has been a significant development, and we are glad to note that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has acted, on a recommendation from its health and consumer services committee, and has announced that it will not renew licences for street trading in pet animals by stallholders in the street which is familiarly known as Club Row. The council, I also understand, has already suspended the issue of new licences to fresh traders in pet animals from stalls and barrows in that market, so the future of Club Row now appears to be restricted, and this activity is likely to close unless any appeal against the council's decision is lodged. If the Minister has any news, perhaps he will tell the House about the present position with regard to an appeal.
While Club Row is the major example of street trading in pets, it is by no means the sole market of its kind. I understand from the RSPCA that they have been concerned for many years past about its character and location, and indeed the Society has over a period taken a number of successful convictions for causing unnecessary suffering to animals. The RSPCA's local inspectors in London, who do such good work, patrol the market regularly each Sunday when it is held and they work in close co-operation with the local authority's enforcement officers. Action under the Pet Animals Act 1951 for breaches of that statute is a matter for the authority, although the RSPCA's remit is, of course, the prevention of suffering and cruelty. However, as my noble friend said, there are about 20 cities and towns in which animals are sold in the same way from market stalls or barrows.
The argument was advanced by Government spokesmen the last time the Bill was debated that legisaltion to prevent street trading in pets generally is a cumbersome and unnecessary method of putting locations such as Club Row out of business. This implies, especially in view of the recent decision by the local authority, that the problem will solve itself in the near future. While the situation in Bethnal Green may be settled—we hope it will be—legislation will still surely be needed to prevent the setting up of new pet trading stalls in other markets, both in London and elsewhere. I should like the Minister to say whether the present law covers that. I understand it does not, and that if one local authority closes down a particular location, nothing can prevent other street trading of this kind from starting up in other areas in London and in other cities and towns.
As my noble friend has said, these markets are undesirable in this particular connection, since they permit the sales of pets of uncertain health record, age and condition, or even breed. There is a disregard for preventitive measures against the spread of diseases. There is also the possibility of stolen pets being resold
462
and perhaps purchased by agents selling to research premises using live animals. Also, trading can take place in circumstances which occasionally seem to breach the Act's requirements in respect of fire precautions, accommodation and other necessary conditions.
Since my noble friend's first introduction of a Bill against the street trading in pets, the number of market traders licensed to sell animals in Club Row has, I understand, fallen sharply from a peak of over 30 pitches trading at that time. It could be suggested that the arbitrary closure of this traditional market—which is only one part of a busy East End traditional Sunday market—would cause great hardship to those licensed to trade. In fact, as my noble friend has already explained when presenting his previous Bills, and again today, in most instances traders already hold petshop licences in the Tower Hamlets or other London boroughs. Some have other businesses related to the sale of pets, or they deal in accessories and supplies for animals and birds. So this is not their only means of trading.
It has been stated by the Government in previous debates that local authorities of other areas where there are street markets have not reported any cause for concern. Perhaps some of the problems which apply at Club Row do not manifest themselves to the same degree elsewhere. But we welcome the constructive approach of the London borough; and there is always the possibility that similar problems could arise.
Surely genuine purchasers of companion animals have numerous opportunities to acquire the pet of their choice by visiting not only licensed pet shops, but preferably the breeder, or supplier, of the species, who can provide evidence of pedigree, fitness and age, and, of course, advice. They need not chance the possibility of purchasing an animal that is probably substandard, unfit or under age for normal sale from a trader who is unable to confirm the quality of the pet.
I should like to say a few words about tortoises—those charming, friendly, and inoffensive little creatures—and to ask the Government for some information about the present situation concerning their importation, since I believe that this is causing concern. Despite repeated complaints during the years from 1965 to 1980 from the RSPCA and conservation bodies, no Government action was taken at that time to restrict imports of tortoises from the Mediterranean and Eastern European countries for sale as pets in this country. The Government of which I had the privilege to be a member were equally to blame; so I am not making any party political point here. The RSPCA based its appeal for prohibition of imports on the conditions of transport from the country of export, the problems of acclimatisation on arrival, the ignorance by some owners of the tortoise's diet and habit—a minority, I hasten to add—and the obvious unsuitability of the tortoise, because of hibernation and other factors, as a companion animal. There is evidence that many tortoises failed to survive longer than one or two years in this country. A survey in Germany, which has a similar climate, showed that 83 per cent. died during their first year. So they are being brought across from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean to a fairly early death.

463
In 1982 however the Department of the Environment, recognising the possibility that tortoises were becoming vulnerable as a result of this situation, took steps to issue a "direction" under the existing legislation on endangered species. I understand that every purchaser, from importer to retail purchaser, was required to complete an "undertaking" for the department. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will say what kind of an undertaking it is, because of course the tortoise is not in a position to see that its interests are being looked after. It has been suggested that the trade will become sensitive to this move and probably reduce imports this year, with a possibility of the whole shipment of tortoises to this country being phased out in 1984.
I submit that few people would regret the passing of a trade which could hardly be beneficial to the creatures concerned, whether they are sold in open markets—and many are—or through other channels of supply. The continued restriction of importation of tortoises could surely go some way to help rescue the species in their native countries, where they are already under pressure to survive for reasons other than the so-called "harvest", amounting to many hundreds of thousands, collected for export. In conclusion, I hope that the House will give my noble friend's Bill a Second Reading.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech at this moment, because I do not believe there is anyone left to convince. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has several times previously produced a Bill such as this, and certainly my noble friend Lord Airedale and myself have spoken in support on previous occasions. This seems to be one of those minor but important reforms which is long overdue. The longer I remain on my feet, the longer it will be before we hear whether the Government have any comfort to give us in speeding along this reform and giving what is undoubtedly the will of your Lordships' House some real effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has I believe much on which to congratulate himself, or on which we should congratulate him, in regard to the pertinacity that he has applied to the pursuit of the Bill. It is due partly to his work and to the way in which he has kept the issue before the public that the reform in Club Row has taken place, and I was delighted to hear that councillors from my party have been helping with this matter. Both the Liberals, and our noble allies, the Social Democrats, are wholeheartedly behind the Bill, and I hope that at last it will reach the statute book.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I, too, most certainly hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it a Second Reading. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on his persistence in trying to get the Bill through the House. I doubt whether I should myself have had quite so much, but he has certainly shown great persistence, which I hope will reap its due reward this afternoon.
464
In his speech the noble Lord spoke about the irresponsible ownership of pets. The Bill does not actually deal with the ownership of them, but merely with obtaining them. However, I should like to point out that the method of obtaining a pet does much to influence the way in which it is to be owned and kept. Imagine, my Lords, a barrow in some market, with perhaps a young puppy in a basket. A mother and her child pass, and the child is fascinated by the sight of the young puppy; so fascinated in fact that the mother decides that she must buy it. But the barrow owner is no expert on dogs. He cannot give any directions as to proper feeding, he has no knowledge of what should be the correct vaccinations for various diseases; he just lets the puppy go. The result is that that puppy may have a very unhappy home.
I recognise that this is not always the case but I think it is probably more often the case than not. Pet shops are qualified to give all the proper advice as to feeding, vaccinations and so on. And there is another point. A dog bought from a stall of the kind I have referred to is much more likely to be a disease-carrier, as has already been mentioned, than one which is properly kept and sold in a pet shop. Disease carrying, obviously, is the thing we want to avoid.
So, looking at the dreadful toll on the road of dogs, and, I regret to say, of cats as well, and at the frequent cases of dogs unfortunately causing very bad accidents as drivers swerve to avoid them, one realises that it is most important that we do something to make for a more responsible ownership of pets. Although plenty remains to be done, this Bill is one step on the way. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Before I sit down, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for mentioning the subject of tortoises. These little creatures are not very often thought of as sentient or as having any feelings or preference for one dwelling or another. But that is quite false; they have all those feelings. It is most important that we do not bring them here (as the noble Lord said) to conditions which are totally unsuitable for them. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Bill will get through; although I must say that I quite realise that a Private Member's Bill does not stand a great deal of chance of getting on to the statue book. I once tried sponsoring one myself and it got no farther than your Lordships' House. One can but go on hoping and it is possible that the other House may at some time see the light.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill. I am speaking from the Liberal Benches on this occasion; I think it is a good thing that on occasions one should show that we are an alliance. I should like simply to say that I think that one of the nice things about Britain is our care and concern for animals. That we may be way in advance, possibly, of some continental countries is a good thing. We can show the way. I believe that this care is even more important because it represents, perhaps, a care of other things and of people as well. I very much hope that this Bill will succeed.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with characteristic determination the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has reintroduced this Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951. As he has said, he has introduced a similar Bill in each of the last two Sessions and on both occasions it passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House. It is a measure of his tireless efforts to improve the lot of animals that the noble Lord has not been discouraged from reintroducing this particular Bill. When he spoke, he was good enough to refer to a Private Member's Bill which I had to do with a year ago and which dealt with red deer in Scotland. I must confess that when I had taken that Bill through all its stages here, I vowed to myself that I would never get drawn into a debate on animals in your Lordships' House again. But I find myself here in a different guise this afternoon. When that Bill was introduced, my noble friend Lord Mansfield, speaking from the Front Bench, referred to Bills such as that as being "tender plants". The noble Lord and others this afternoon have pointed out that this is still the case, that they are tender plants when it comes to their treatment in another place. So perhaps I ought to say now, so as to remove any element of suspense, that the Government do not propose to stand in the way of the Bill, for reasons which I shall explain.
Those of your Lordships who were present at the Second Reading of the Bill in this House in January 1982 may recall that my noble friend Lord Belstead expressed sympathy with the objectives of the Bill, but said that the Government had to think of its wider implications. The Bill, he said, would not just affect Club Row. It might jeopardise the livelihoods of traders at other markets throughout the country about whom to the Government's knowledge there had been few if any complaints that could be substantiated. Animals sold in these markets were already protected by a battery of legislation, including the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, the Theft Act 1968 and the Pet Animals Act 1951 itself. All the evidence was that this legislation was being properly enforced in markets where pet animals were sold. And so my noble friend concluded that the case for national legislation had not been made out, although your Lordships will recall that he did not oppose the Bill.
Since then, however, as your Lordships know, things have changed. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has described, Tower Hamlets Borough Council, which controls street trading within that borough, has passed a resolution under Section 16(1)(b) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1947 to the effect that, as from 2nd January 1983, the council will no longer include animals in the description, in any street trading licence issued by them, of commodities which may be sold from a stall; although existing traders are to be permitted to trade for the first six months of' 1983. However, 12 appeals against this resolution have been received by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In this connection, I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as being the person to whom appeals would come. In fact, it is the Secretary of State for the Home Office.
466
My Lords, I think I ought to say nothing today which can be taken in any way as prejudging the results of these appeals, which are sub judice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will accept that. My remarks are solely concerned with Lord Houghton's Bill to amend current legislation, which aims to improve the present standards of animal welfare.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked whether under existing legislation there is anything to stop new street markets springing up. The answer to that is, no, if the local authority is willing to license the setting up of new markets. I think that the noble Lord will agree that it does not seem likely that Tower Hamlets will license another market.
My noble friend Lord Belstead said in effect last year that the subject matter of this Bill arose from a local problem which should be dealt with on a local basis. That is now being done, and I imagine therefore that many of your Lordships will now be expecting me to say that the case for the Bill this year is less than it was last. But I am not going to do so. We have kept closely in touch with developments in Club Row and we have considered carefully the conclusions drawn by the council about the vulnerability of the animals displayed there.
We do not think—any more than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does, as he made plain last year—that the majority of animals sold in markets are subject to deliberate cruelty or callous neglect. Far from it. But we do think that the conditions which they have to bear are below those which sensible and compassionate public opinion in this country is prepared to tolerate. The Government will not be swayed by the views of extremists in the animal welfare lobby or in any other. But they acknowledge the force expressed in the sincere views held by hundreds of people about pet animals sold in markets. It is quite possible that no licensing system, however rigorous, and no stall-holder, however scrupulous, can guarantee the welfare of the animals on sale against such things as environmental stress and cross-infection. The Government now believe therefore that there is no way, short of prohibiting the sale of pet animals from market stalls, of reassuring the public that such animals arc not at risk.
Here I think I should deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stabolgi, on tortoises. That is not a subject on which I am an expert. My noble friend Lord Long sitting on the Front Bench with me has told me that he has two tortoises, so he is much more of an expert than I am. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me warning that he was going to raise this particular point. I can tell him that the Department of the Environment is responsible for the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, which implements in the United Kingdom the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and which makes the import of all tortoises subject to licence.
I understand from the Department of the Environment that a European regulation of the Council of Ministers on the implementation of this convention will ban the import of tortoises from next year. I understand that the agriculture department in this country issued in 1979, after consultation, advisory

467
notes to importers of tortoises, which presumably covers the case up to now. As I said, I should like to look at it further. I hope that that has given the noble Lord some reassurance. The question of the diet and habit of tortoises is something in which I am sure many people will have an interest. Personally, I am appalled when I see photographs of tortoises in cages which contain mostly dead tortoises. My particular problem at the moment—if it is not too wide of the point—is that I share a house not only with two human beings in London but also a rabbit. The rabbit's diet and habits are something apart. It even ate a complete azalea the other day down to the stump!
We have recognised that the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced could affect a number of traders up and down the country. However, we think the impact of the Bill upon them may not be as great as at one time we might have feared. In the first place, we believe that a number of them—and it is probably the majority—use the market trade to supplement their income from pet shops. This was a point that the noble Lord made. I think your Lordships will agree that those who really want a pet and intend to treat it properly will go to a shop to obtain it just as readily as to a street market. Secondly, there is some evidence that the force of public opinion has caused pet stallholders gradually to cease trading and that the number of active licensees is considerably less than it used to be.
This is not the time to look at the detail of the Bill, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I say now that we have had a look at the drafting and think that it is probably satisfactory. But we shall be happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, assistance where necessary if changes are to be made.
I end as I began, by congratulating the noble Lord on his tenacity in bringing this Bill forward. That has been echoed by other speakers this afternoon. I am sure the Bill will have a speedy passage going through its later stages in your Lordships' House, and as one who, as I said before, has so recently piloted an animal Bill through, I look forward to having the noble Lord as a companion in success in due course.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for that reply. If I may say so, it is in favourable contrast to the speeches I have received on earlier occasions. Indeed, looking further back, I am sure that Ronald Russell would have been glad to hear anything resembling what the noble Lord has just said.
There may be a point on Committee stage which, as a matter of fact, has been raised by the advisers from Tower Hamlets as to whether any further tightening up is necessary—for example, on what is a public place. We can attend to that then and I do not think it will be a very serious matter. I am therefore deeply indebted to the noble Lord for the assurance that the Bill will now see its way through your Lordships' House; and what happens after that will of course depend on what facilities may be sought or obtained in
468
another place. I may have to visit my old haunts to see what can be done there. However, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and to the noble Lords who have supported this Bill. The atmosphere and the reception of this Bill this afternoon is a delightful change from previous occasions.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past two o'clock.