Lords Sitting of 12 May 1983

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

Clerk of the Parliaments: Retirement of Sir Peter Henderson, KCB; Appointment of Mr. J. C. Sainty
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir Peter Henderson. It reads as follows:
"Dear Leader of the House,
"It is my duty to request you to announce to the House that after consultation with yourself and the Lord Chancellor I have asked the Prime Minister to submit to Her Majesty The Queen my resignation from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from the beginning of the Summer Recess; and that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept my resignation.
"I was appointed Clerk of the Parliaments in July 1974 and have now served nearly 9 years in that office. My appointment is not due to end till July 1987 but I should now like to retire and I am confident that the House will be well served by the Parliament Office after my retirement.
"I shall leave the House with regret. It has been a privilege to serve as Clerk of the Parliaments and I should be obliged if you would convey to the House my gratitude for the kindness and friendship which I have received from all sides of the House during my period of office.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Henderson."
My Lords, it is my further duty to notify your Lordships that The Queen has been pleased to appoint Mr. John Christopher Sainty to succeed Sir Peter Henderson from the beginning of the Summer Recess.
Following that announcement it will, I am sure, be your Lordships' wish in due course to pay tributes to the services of Sir Peter Henderson in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am advised that the proper manner of doing this is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion recording the House's appreciation of Sir Peter Henderson's services; but, happily, he will be with us until the House rises in the first Session of the next Parliament for the Summer Recess and that Motion will not therefore be tabled until nearer the Summer Recess when Sir Peter will hand over and the new Clerk will be sworn in.
In the ordinary course of events, I would have communicated this information to the Offices Committee before notifying the House but, due to the Dissolution of this Parliament, that has not proved to be possible and it has been agreed through the "usual channels" that I should make this announcement to the House at the earliest opportunity rather than waiting until the Offices Committee can be set up and a meeting arranged in the new Parliament, which would not be until some time early in July.
550
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, immediately following me, will announce his appointment to the vacancy at the Table consequential on Sir Peter's retirement, and I should like to say for myself and on the Lord Chancellor's behalf that extensive consultations have been held with representatives of all sides of the House over these important appointments. This is in accordance with undertakings given by my predecessors as Leader of the House and previous Lord Chancellors that appointments to the Table should be the subject of wide consultations, and these undertakings have on this occasion been honoured to the full. I should also report to the House that the result of those consultations was unanimous.

Reading Clerk: Mr. M. A. J. Wheeler-Booth
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have appointed Mr. Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth as Reading Clerk to take effect from the date when Sir Peter Henderson resigns at the beginning of the Summer Recess in the first Session of the next Parliament, subject to the approval of the House. A Motion for the approval of this appointment will be tabled for consideration nearer that date.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor for making those announcements. I note that there will be another opportunity to express our appreciation of Sir Peter Henderson's services to the House. Therefore, at this stage I shall simply say that I look forward to being able to pay tribute to Sir Peter on that occasion. I am grateful for the extensive consultations, over which I know the Leader of the House has taken a great deal of care and trouble. I can confirm—and I know that in saying this I can speak for representatives of all parts of the House—that the outcome of these consultations has been unanimous.

Personal Statement: The Lord Skelmersdale
3.11 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on reading Hansard this morning I now realise that I unwittingly confused the House yesterday in reply to the Question by my noble friend Lord Inglewood about the British contingent with the multinational force in the Lebanon. There is indeed a United Nations force in the Lebanon, but this was not the one referred to in supplementary questions. The multinational force on which I was questioned is not a United Nations force. It was set up last year by agreement between the participating countries—the United States, France and Italy—and the Lebanese Government. A British contingent, a later addition to the force, is similarly in Lebanon under the terms of an exchange of letters with the Lebanese Government.
There is no overall commander of the multinational force. Each contingent operates under national command. Political and military control of the British contingent is retained by Her Majesty's Government.

551
Day-to-day tasks of the multinational force are decided by co-ordination between the force commanders, the ambassadors of the countries concerned and the Lebanese authorities. My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to apologise to the House.

Airline Landing Charges
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement concerning the outcome of the dispute between the British Airports Authority and certain airlines on the matter of landing charges and, if not, when they expect to be able to do so.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, following long and at times difficult negotiations, the American and other airlines which had taken legal proceedings over the Heathrow landing charges discontinued their action. They did this on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding and Settlement Agreement which, inter alia, set out the policies of the British Airports Authority on airport charges. The United States Government, which had initiated action under the Bermuda 2 Agreement, also discontinued their action on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding setting out Her Majesty's Government's policies.
An announcement to this effect was made on 8th April. Copies of the documents are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am glad that these matters, which have been the source of friction and have involved the expenditure of a great deal of time and effort, have been satisfactorily resolved in this way.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being glad that this three-year dispute has at last been brought to an end, may I ask the Minister whether what has been agreed includes the fact that in future the British Airports Authority will not rely so heavily on high landing charges to finance its capital expenditure? Secondly, has it also been agreed that in future there will be much closer collaboration among all airlines and the British Airports Authority on any fees levied by the authority?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the joint statement which was made by the parties when the actions were settled. It read as follows:
"Both sides now have a better understanding of each other's position and arrangements are being set in hand for improved collaboration and exchanges of information between the BAA and all its airline customers".
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the present Parliamentary Session ends tomorrow, may I ask whether the Minister realises how much I myself and the airlines have appreciated the manner in which
552
he has been prepared to look at well-documented cases? We appreciate the proper answers that we have had in this House and we should like to thank him.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says. She has herself played a major part in the progress which has been made on these various matters.

Origin Marking Requirements
3.15 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce improved regulations to ensure that all goods in British shops are clearly marked with the name of their country of origin.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are reviewing the operation of the existing origin marking requirements, and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is now a desire by many individuals in Britain to do their best to create job opportunities and a demand for our goods? It would be very much easier to carry out individual wishes if we were able to discover where goods came from. The sooner this is made clear, the better for Britain's recovery in general.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I note the point made by my noble friend, and I support his view that, wherever possible, people in this country prefer to buy British goods. In fact, we have greatly extended the scope of origin marking and we are considering what further extensions might be desirable.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether there is any merit in introducing some form of financial incentive to produce origin markings?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is a suggestion that goes rather wide. We are restricted in what we can do in this field by our obligations towards the Community and under international agreement.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord give consideration to the fact that many British names are put on commodities that are produced abroad and that people buy them in all good faith thinking that they are British made? I am speaking particularly about goods from some of our larger fashion houses that carry the British tag. One finds when one has taken one's purchase home that very often there is a small tag sewn into the seam of the article that says "Made in Hong Kong".
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 requires the origin marking of all imports which are supplied here under a United Kingdom name or mark.

"General Belgrano": President of Peru's Alleged Statement
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet traced the published interview with the President of Peru concerning the sinking of the "Belgrano" and, if so, whether they propose to take any action.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord has kindly sent me the text of an interview published by an Argentine magazine last January in which President Belaúnde described his efforts to assist a negotiated solution to the Falklands crisis during the first three weeks of May 1982. No action by Her Majesty's Government is called for.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recall that on 20th April, when I asked him a similar Question, his Answer was to the effect that he had consulted the British Embassy in Lima and the Swiss section dealing with British affairs in Buenos Aires? Does he not agree that he would have saved the expenditure of this public money if he had walked down the corridor, where, at that time, there was in the Library of another place a copy of the interview to which I referred in the edition of Siete Dias for 26th January? Would he also agree that in his answer to my letter, in which I suggested that he had misled the House on this occasion, he has not in any way cast any doubt on the fact that the sinking of the "Belgrano" was coincidental with the peace negotiations led by Peru and that, in fact, his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was at that time discussing peace? Can he tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary was informed of the decision to sink the "Belgrano"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it was reasonable to infer from the noble Lord's Question on 20th April and from the summary that appeared in a British newspaper on 20th March that the noble Lord's interest was being expressed in a recent statement by President Belaunde rather than in a three-months-old press interview. The noble Lord says to the House that the sinking of the "Belgrano" and the mediation efforts by President Belaunde were coincidental. May-be they were; but the press report to which I now know the noble Lord is referring, which was published in Argentina, tells how the President of Peru continued active negotiations for more than two more weeks, says that the British agreed to listen to any proposal and records that those negotiations were finally ended by unilateral Argentine action.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary was informed of the decision to sink the "Belgrano" before
554
that decision was conveyed to the submarine commander?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the British Government had established the maritime exclusion zone on 12th April and had also warned, on 23rd April, that any approach by Argentine warships which could amount to a threat to British forces would encounter the appropriate response. There was therefore a possibility of action at any time against an Argentine warship disregarding those warnings. The position of my right honourable friend, therefore, does not come into the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if it is the case as the noble Minister has said, the British having said categorically that anything within the 200-mile radius of the fleet would suffer attack and the "Belgrano" being miles away from that 200-mile radius, who then gave the instruction to disobey that word of honour of the British public?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is ground which has been gone over many times before. The "General Belgrano" was kept in such a position by the Argentine authorities, despite warnings that Argentine warships which could pose a threat to British forces would be subject to attack.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the many Argentine casualties incurred by the sinking of the "Belgrano", would the Minister say what arrangements he would authorise for the visit by families of Argentine servicemen who were killed in the Falklands war to visit the graves there? Would the Minister not agree that, apart from the point of view of compassion and humanity, the lack of enthusiasm towards such a visit is a greater tool for propaganda in the hands of the Argentinians than would be a visit itself?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no lack of enthusiasm: but we are now getting on to a different question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend assure the House just once more—not only because the contents of this Question have been shown to be false but because press reports have also carried the same innuendoes—that the current allegations about the facts surrounding the sinking of the "Belgrano" have absolutely no foundation whatsoever?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords, I will do so. The "General Belgrano" was sunk solely for military reasons—because she posed a threat to ships of the task force. The House should know that thorough investigation has shown that knowledge of the Peruvian proposals reached London only after the attack on the "General Belgrano". The record, of which I think all noble Lords are aware, shows quite clearly how hard we tried before and after that sinking to reach a negotiated settlement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although it may be the case that the electoral benefit derived by the Conservative Party from the sinking and subsequent victory are entirely coincidental, will not—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will not the noble Lord bear in mind—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it would be the wish of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, should ask his supplementary question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, that is what I was trying to do. I was about to ask the noble Lord whether he would bear in mind, in relation to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, Winston Churchill's dictum, "In victory, magnanimity".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, not only have we shown magnanimity in this matter but we have been ready to offer proper facilities; but, as the noble Lord knows, the arrangements were not accepted by those who were organising the visit.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord is attempting to maintain his stand that the news of the Peruvian negotiations reached London and the Prime Minister, who took this decision, only after the sinking of the "Belgrano", how does he equate that with the statement of his right honourable friend the Foreign Minister, who, on arriving in Washington before the sinking of the "Belgrano", said that there was no intention to take any further military action? May I ask him whether he has seen the press reports referred to by his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, the BBC programme on 29th April and also the reports given by Mr. Paul Foot both in the Daily Mirror and in this week's New Statesman, which support the point that I have been trying to make to him?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord ascribes such a statement to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at a time when the task force was steaming towards the Falkland Islands. So far as the rest of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I am very pleased to put the record absolutely clear. The first intimation that the Government had of the existence of any proposals from the President of Peru came in a series of conversations between Mr. Pym and Mr. Haig in Washington on 2nd May. The result of these conversations was telegraphed to London at 2215 GMT on 2nd May—over three hours after the attack on the "General Belgrano".
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am a very simple person and I have a simple question. If we had not sunk the Belgrano", would the "Belgrano" probably have sunk some of our ships?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to this question has been made clear by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces on 24th March and 2nd May. The answer to the noble Lord is that there were signs that our ships and men were threatened by a pincer attack, and that that involved the "General Belgrano".

Unemployment Statistics
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the reasons for the omission from the published "total unemployed" statistics of the figures relating to those who are unemployed and seeking work but who are not required to register for benefit.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the monthly unemployment figures refer to those people who are registered at unemployment offices for the purposes of benefit. Other job seekers can be identified by random household surveys but these are only estimates. Those surveys, however, indicate that there are people who are claiming benefit but who are not actively seeking work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite the fact that unemployment is continuing to rise in the United Kingdom, and is predicted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as likely to rise still further, the public figures—upon which, at any rate, certain sections of the presss rely for their headlines—show a downward trend due to what can only be described as a massaging of the figures? Is the noble Earl the Minister aware that the unemployment figures probably disclose something like 500,000 short of the true figure for unemployment based upon the old method of computation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggest that the figures have been massaged. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not so. I explained in the original Answer that these figures which are obtained are statistical figures; therefore, they have their limitations. Those people who are approached during random samples have been shown not to be actively seeking work, but nevertheless claiming benefit. They may amount to some 400,000; equally there are those who do not claim benefit but who do seek work, and their number can be about the same, so those figures cancel each other out.
The noble Lord referred to the increase in unemployment, which we all regret. But may I just tell him this: in the last 12 months the United Kingdom figure for unemployment has increased by 13 per cent.; that for Italy by 19 per cent.; for the Netherlands 30 per cent.; for Germany 32 per cent.; and for Canada 35 per cent. So our record is not worse than that of the other countries.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give us details of the figures of those who are in employment in the United Kingdom?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 42 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom are in work. A

557
higher proportion of the population in work appears in the United Kingdom than in any other country in Europe, other than Luxembourg and Denmark.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as I understand it, the policy of the Government is to enhance the employment possibility, but in their endeavours to do that they say that people aged over 60 who are unemployed shall not be counted in the figures. Therefore are we to understand that if they drop that to people aged over 20 who would be out of work then Britain's creation of unemployment would be as it was under the Labour Government—full employment? Is that the absurdity of what ordinary people understand, with this callous act of the Government being nothing but a con trick?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only say I am surprised at the noble Lord's use of language—
Lord Molloy: Tell that to the unemployed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will be good enough not to make interventions from a sedentary position but will enable me to answer the question, that will be a help. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that those over 60 used to have to register for national insurance credits and they were therefore added to the unemployment figure even though they may have been retired with pension. Now they do not have to do this and therefore that particular figure has been removed from the unemployment statistics.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, "con trick", is undoubtedly an offence under Standing Order No. 29 as to asperity, and he should be asked to withdraw it?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear. Withdraw!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that at paragraph 11 of the Department of Employment press notice issued on the 6th May, the department refers to the fact that certain provisions are made in the Budget, and that from April under the first provision men aged 60 or over no longer have to sign on at an unemployment benefit office to secure national insurance credit? As a result, it has been estimated that some 90,000 men may no longer have to sign on. Is the noble Earl aware that The Times, in its feature on this subject on 9th May, referred to the fact that this amount will be reflected in the next unemployment figures—published, oddly enough, on the 3rd June, six days before the general election? Does the noble Earl think that it is right to mislead the electorate at large by causing it to be presented four days before the poll with figures that do not reflect the accurate position?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, if I may say so with respect, is making a mountain out of a molehill. The changes in the coverage of the figures simply follow changes in administrative procedures which we have made easier for unemployed people. The effects of
558
these changes on the unemployment count are monitored openly and are fully displayed. The figure to which the noble Lord referred is the fact that in April the count was reduced by 26,400 because of men aged 60 and over moving to automatic national insurance credits—not 90,000.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Government are perhaps making a molehill out of a mountain?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if by that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, means that we are not taking unemployment seriously, perhaps I can just tell him that the Government are spending some £2,000 million this year on helping the training of people under the special employment and training measures. That is a very substantial figure.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that the figure of 90,000 which he has challenged is taken from the press release of the Department of Employment itself—paragraph 11, on page 8? Is the noble Earl further aware that the figure I gave to the House was therefore quite correct?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the figure I gave to the noble Lord referred to the figure I thought he was asking for—the number of people aged 60 with a pension who now do not have to call and be registered.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, April figures.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister gave certain details of the rise in unemployment in certain countries. Will he confirm that France, with its Socialist Government, has succeeded in slightly reducing the number of unemployed in that country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that France has a smaller proportion of its people employed than in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the figure is 42 per cent.; in France it is only 40 per cent. If the inference of her question is that the conditions of the French Government are better than in England, I think the noble Baroness wants to have a look at what is happening in France at the moment.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is there not another vital difference—that we have more sea oil and they have not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a fascinating difference but nothing whatever to do, with the greatest respect, with the question which is on the Order Paper.

Broadcasting of Parliament (Annual Review) Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons earlier this day and printed pursuant to Standing Order 47, was read a first time.
Finance Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons earlier this day and printed pursuant to Standing Order 47, was read a first time.
National Audit Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons earlier this day and printed pursuant to Standing Order 47, was read a first time.
Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons earlier this day and printed pursuant to Standing Order 47, was read a first time.
Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust Bill
Read a third time, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Business of the House
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 68 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Motions to approve the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983 and the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983 tomorrow notwithstanding that there have not been laid before the House reports thereon from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [85] as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out from "enjoyment" to "and" in line 6 and insert "and understanding of art, craft".
2 Clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"(aa) provide education, instruction and advice and carry out research,".
3 Clause 2, page 2, line 17, after "admission" insert "or for other services or for goods provided by them,".
4 Clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) If a Minister of the Crown directs the Board to exercise functions which are exercisable by him (whether by virtue of an enactment or otherwise), which in his opinion can appropriately be exercised by the Board having regard to their functions and resources, and which are specified in the direction, the Board shall exercise them on his behalf in such manner as he may from time to time direct; but nothing in this subsection authorises the Board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character".
5 Clause 2, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) The Board may allow premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the functions mentioned in subsection (1) if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict unduly with those functions".
6 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
"Power of Board to form companies.
(1) With the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to art, craft or design,

(b) the commissioning of works of art, craft or design,

(c) the production of replicas or reproductions of works of art, craft or design, or of souvenirs,

(d) the sale of informative material relating to art, craft or design, of works of art, craft or design, of replicas or reproductions of such works, or of souvenirs, and,

(e) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any premises occupied or managed by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section references to works of design are to works illustrating the principles of design.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 2."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 1 to 6 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 14 to 19, 27 and 28, 30 to 33, 40 to 47, 49, 63, 66 to 69, 71 to 77, 79 to 83, 85, to 92 and 94 to 96. The first of these amendments relates to the functions and constitutions of the four boards of trustees. Perhaps I could highlight those which may be of greatest interest to the House. The Government have added to the Bill amendments designed to ensure that all or some of the boards specifically have powers to carry out particular functions. This group includes powers to establish trading companies (Amendments Nos. 6, 19 and 49); powers to let premises for purposes not connected with their functions (Amendments Nos. 5 and 18); and a power for the Minister to direct that the board shall undertake functions on his behalf. This last replaces narrower powers in the original Bill and is intended to ensure that the V and A and Science Museums can continue to administer the local purchase grants scheme if required. We have also clarified the board's functions in respect of their

561
educational role and their powers to charge for services or goods provided by them.
Further groups of amendments are concerned with Schedule 1. These widen the fields of expertise to which the appropriate Minister of the Crown shall have regard when appointing trustees, raise the minimum size of the quorum in most boards, give an explicit power to pay allowances in respect of loss of earnings for trustees and committee members; provide a duty to report on the introduction of any admission charges, together with any exemptions, and provide the boards with the privileges, immunities and exemptions enjoyed by a Minister when they are exercising functions on his behalf.
There are also a number of what might be best described as technical amendments concerned with the accounting provisions changing the reference from "property" to "land" and the substitution for "craft" for "the crafts" and "understanding" for "knowledge" in Clauses 2, 9 and 16 and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1.
I should like also to bring to your attention a series of printing errors in some amendments in this group. On page 4, Amendment 19, subsection (2)(b) line 1, the first "or" should read "of". On page 5, Amendment 19, subsection (2)(d), line 3, after "occupied" insert "or managed". On page 9, Amendment 49, subsection (2) (b), "plans" should read "plants". Page 13, Amendment No. 63, (b) should read (6). Page 16, Amendment 90, para. 32, line 2, the second "as" should read "or". Page 17, Amendment No. 97, subsection (8), line 4, after "lie" insert "except". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 5, page 4, line 10, leave out "Subject to section 2(6)".
8 Clause 5, page 4, line 18, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 27 and insert—
"(3) The Board may not dispose of an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collections unless—

(a) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which is a duplicate of another object the property in which is so vested and which is so comprised, or

(b) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which in the Board's opinion is unsuitable for retention in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public, or

(c) the disposal is by way of sale or gift made to, or exchange made with, any institution mentioned in subsection (3A), or

(d) the disposal (by whatever means, including destruction) if of an object which the Board are satisfied has become useless for the purposes of their collections by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

(3A) The institutions mentioned in subsection (3)(c) are the institutions.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, 20 and 21, 23 to 26, 29, 34 and 34A, 36 to 39, 48 and 50 to 53. There is also one correction in this block of
562
amendments which is on page 5, Amendment No. 20—page 2 should read page 8.
As we stressed when we took the Bill through this House, in drafting the Bill we have been very concerned to ensure that the rights of third parties remain unaffected. Thus, Clause 3(4) provides that any rights and liabilities which a Secretary of State has or to which he is subject because of his ownership of the objects in the collections are transferred to the board along with the objects. If an object is subject to a trust or condition now, it will remain so in the hands of the board. We have further sought to ensure that rights under trusts or conditions would be respected by including the express declaration which was contained in Clause 2(6) of a previous print of the Bill.
On further reflection, we now think that the subsection is unnecessary and may in fact positively threaten third party rights in other respects. The subsection is unnecessary because it amounts to no more than the proposition that the board should observe the law: in other words, it is stating the obvious. It is well established in law that where legislation creates a statutory corporation (which the board will be) it does not empower the corporation to disregard the law, unless the clearest of words are used. Without Clause 2(6) there is no question that the board will be able to override trusts and conditions. The new Clause 5(3) is designed to emphasise still more clearly than its predecessor that the board may not dispose of any object in breach of trust or condition except in the very limited circumstances prescribed in paragraph (d).
The amended Clause 5(5) makes it possible for the boards to override trusts and conditions in the disposal of objects only where an object is useless for the purposes of the board's collections by reason of damage, physical deterioration or infestation by destructive organisms. By stipulating that trusts and conditions may be overridden only in these circumstances there can be no question that in the case of all other disposals, whether by sale, exchange or gift, the trust and conditions must be observed.
So far as lending is concerned, the new provisions vary slightly from those previously in the Bill, in that they make it plain that it is the person who originally imposed the restriction or his personal representatives whose consent is required to the loan of an object and not the person or personal representatives of the person who donated or bequeathed the object to the museum. In many cases this person and the person who imposed the condition will be one and the same, but it is possible to imagine gifts or bequests of objects already subject to a condition imposed by another. In these circumstances we think it right that the person who orginally set up the restriction should be the one to lift the restriction and not the ultimate donor.
The Government believe that there is a distinction to be drawn in the case of provisions affecting the board's powers to make loans between trusts and conditions. In the case of the latter, the donor of an object which is subject to a condition may be entitled to the return of that object should the condition be breached. These amendments are not intended to alter in any way the basic premise underlying the provisions

563
of the Bill: the trust and conditions attaching to objects must be observed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Page 4, line 30, leave out from "Trustees" to end of line 33 and insert "and the Tate Gallery Trustees".
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 22, 35, 189, 191 to 197 and 199. These amendments were tabled in response to a commitment which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on Report and again on Third Reading. They deal with points which were also raised in Committee in another place. These amendments add the Boards of the Armouries, the British Museum (Natural History) and the British Library to the list of bodies set out in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954.
Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act serves two purposes. First, it names the institutions other than the National and Tate galleries to which the Secretary of State may direct works of art left to the nation without specific direction being made. The National and Tate galleries are covered by specific provisions elsewhere in that Act. There are good reasons why these three institutions should also be able to benefit from such directions. The British Library is the foremost library in the nation and, since the National Libraries of both Wales and Scotland are already included, it is right that the British Library should also be named. Of course, the British Library did not exist as a separate entity in 1954 and the Act of 1972 establishing the Library did not include appropriate provisions.
The omission of the British Museum (Natural History) came about for similar reasons. The British Museum Act 1963 established the Natural History Museum as a separate entity, but made no provision to add the new body to the Schedule to the 1954 Act. In our view, the Tower Armouries should also be added, since it is right that they should be able to benefit in the same way as the other trustee museums and galleries in appropriate instances. The list in the 1954 schedule serves an additional purpose; it represents those national institutions to whom the Tate Gallery may transfer objects.
Similar reference to the schedule was made in some subsequent museums legislation but not all, and the transfer provisions in those Acts vary. Taken with the effect of transfer provisions in legislation prior to 1954, there is no fully reciprocal system. This is not as bad as it sounds, because in most cases the essential relationships between particular institutions are covered in one way or another.
These amendments fill some of the more serious gaps involving the British Museum and the British Library. Further, by adding those institutions to Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act with the British Museum
564
(Natural History) and the Armouries, we enable those institutions to receive relevant objects by transfer from those other national institutions empowered to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will agree that these amendments meet the substance of his own amendments earlier, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for explaining the purpose of these amendments which, as he said, are based on amendments that I moved during Report and Third Reading stages when the Bill came before your Lordships' House. During the passage of the Bill through this House, where it started, it came to light that there were certain defects in the drafting of the British Museum Act, the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, and that other Acts relating to the transfer of objects between our national museums were out of date and should have been updated, as the noble Earl said, to take account of institutions such as the British Library which have come into effect since those Acts became law. Therefore, it seemed to us that it was important that this Bill should be seen as an opportunity to tidy up this legislation. The Government accepted that in principle in this House, and we are very grateful to them for the fact that they have made these amendments in the other place. Particularly on the 20th anniversary of the British Museum Act 1963, it is important that this defect should have been put right. We are very grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Page 4, line 34, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
"(5) An object may be disposed of as mentioned in subsection (3)(d) notwithstanding a trust or condition (express or implied) prohibiting or restricting the disposal of the object.".
11 Page 4, line 42, leave out "an exercise of the powers conferred by" and insert "a disposal mentioned in".
12 Clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (2)".
13 Clause 6, page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Where the property in an object has become vested in the Board subject to a condition, the power conferred by subsection (1) is exercisable in a manner inconsistent with the condition if either—

(a) 25 years have elapsed since the date on which the property became vested in the Board (or, where it became vested in them under section 3(1), the Minister), or

(b) the person who first imposed the condition or his personal representatives have consented in writing to the exercise of the power in that manner.".

14 Clause 9, page 6, line 5, leave out from "enjoyment" to "or in line 6 and insert "and understanding of science and technology and".
15 Clause 9, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
"(aa) provide education, instruction and advice and carry out research,".
16 Clause 9, page 6, line 18, after "admission" insert "or for other services or for goods provided by them".
17 Clause 9, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
"(3A) If a Minister of the Crown directs the Board to exercise functions which are exercisable by him (whether by virtue of an enactment or otherwise), which in his opinion can appropriately be exercised by the Board having regard to their functions and resources, and which are specified in the direction, the Board shall exercise them on his behalf in such manner as he may from time to time direct; but

565
nothing in this subsection authorises the Board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character."
18 Clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) The Board may allow premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the functions mentioned in subsection (1) if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict unduly with those functions.".
19 After clause 9, insert the following new clause:
"Power of Board to form companies
.—(1) With the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to science and technology.

(b) the production of replicas or reproductions of objects relating to science and technology, or of souvenirs.

(c) the sale of informative material relating to science and technology, or of replicas or reproductions of objects relating to science and technology, or of souvenirs, and

(d) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any premises occupied or managed by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section references to science and technology include references to the development of those subjects.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 9."
20 Clause 12, page 8, line 1, leave out "Subject to section 9(5),".
21 Clause 12, page 8, line 9, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 19 and insert—
"(3) The Board may not dispose of an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collections unless—

(a) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange, or gift of an object which is a duplicate of another object the property in which is so vested and which is so comprised, or

(b) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which in the Board's opinion is unsuitable for retention in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public, or

(c) the disposal is by way of sale or gift made to, or exchange made with, any institution mentioned in subsection (3A), or

(d) the disposal (by whatever means, including destruction) is of an object which the Board are satisfied has become useless for the purposes of their collections by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

(3A) The institutions mentioned in subsection (3)(c) are the institutions".
22 Clause 12, page 8, line 21, leave out from "Trustees" to end of line 24 and insert "and the Tate Gallery Trustees".
23 Clause 12, page 8, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
"(5) An object may be disposed of as mentioned in subsection (3)(d) notwithstanding a trust or condition (express or implied) prohibiting or restricting the disposal of the object.".
24 Clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out "an exercise of the powers conferred by" and insert "a disposal mentioned in".
25 Clause 13, page 8, line 37, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (2)".
26 Clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Where the property in an object has become vested in the Board subject to a condition, the power conferred by
566
subsection (1) is exercisable in a manner inconsistent with the condition if either—

(a) 25 years have elapsed since the date on which the property became vested in the Board (or, where it became vested in them under section 10(1), the Minister), or

(b) the person who first imposed the condition or his personal representatives have consented in writing to the exercise of the power in that manner.".

27 Clause 16, page 10, line 6, leave out "of, and advance their knowledge" and insert "and understanding".
28 Clause 16, page 10, line 11, at end, insert—
"(aa) provide education, instruction and advice and carry out research.".
29 Clause 16, page 10, line 31, leave out subsection (7).
30 Clause 16, page 10, line 42, at end, insert", and includes power to require payment for goods or for services other than admission provided by the Board.".
31 Clause 17, page 11, line 1, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3A)".
32 Clause 17, page 11, line 20, at end insert—
"(3A) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply as regards an object excepted from those provisions by an order made by the Secretary of State and coming into force before the vesting day.
(3B) The power to make an order under subsection (3A) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
33 Clause 17, page 11, line 22, at end insert "(other than subsections (3A) and (3B))".
34 Clause 18, page 11, line 23, leave out "Subject to section 16(7),".
34A Clause 18, page 11, line 31, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 40 and insert—
"(3) The Board may not dispose of an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collection unless—

(a) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which is a duplicate of another object the property in which is so vested and which is so comprised, or

(b) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which in the Board's opinion is unsuitable for retention in their collection and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public, or

(c) the disposal is by way of sale or gift made to, or exchange made with, any institution mentioned in subsection (3A), or

(d) the disposal (by whatever means, including destruction) is of an object which the Board are satisfied has become useless for the purposes of their collection by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

(3A) The institutions mentioned in subsection (3)(c) are the institutions".
35 Clause 18, page 11, line 42, leave out from "1954" to end of line 44 and insert "(ignoring the words "The Armouries"), the National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees.".
36 Clause 18, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
37 Clause 18, page 12, line 7, leave out "an exercise of the powers conferred by" and insert "a disposal mentioned in".
38 Clause 19, page 12, line 11, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (2)".
39 Clause 19, page 12, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Where the property in an object has become vested in the Board subject to a condition, the power conferred by subsection (1) is exercisable in a manner inconsistent with the condition if either—

(a) 25 years have elapsed since the date on which the condition was first imposed on any person, or

(b) the person who first imposed the condition or his personal representatives have consented in writing to the exercise of the power in that manner.".

40 Clause 22, page 13, line 26, leave out "property" and insert "land".
41 Clause 22, page 13, line 36, after "Board" insert "or for any goods provided by them".
42 Clause 22, page 13, line 37, leave out "property" and insert "land".
43 Clause 22, page 14, line 1, leave out "property" and insert "land".
44 Clause 22, page 14, line 4, after "functions" insert "which are".
45 Clause 22, page 14, line 7, leave out "property" and insert "land and which in his opinion can appropriately be exercised by the Board having regard to their functions and resources: but subsection (5) does not apply to a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character.".
46 Clause 22, page 14, line 9, leave out "property" and insert "land".
47 Clause 22, page 14, line 18, leave out "property" and insert "land".
48 Clause 22, page 14, line 23, leave out subsection (9).
49 After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:
Power of Board to form companies.
(1) With the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and subject to any conditions he may impose, the Board may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication of books, films or other informative material relating to the science of plants or related subjects or to the Board and their functions,

(b) the production of souvenirs relating to plants or to the Board's activities,

(c) the sale of plants produced by the Board or objects relating to plants, of informative material relating to the science of plants or related subjects, or of souvenirs relating to plants or to the Board's activities, and

(d) the provision of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for the public at any land occupied by the Board.

(3) The Board may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Board to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 22".
50 Clause 24, page 15, line 12, leave out "Subject to section 22(9)",
51 Clause 24, page 15, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
"(2) The Board may not dispose of an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collections unless—

(a) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which is a duplicate of another object the property in which is so vested and which is so comprised, or

(b) the disposal is by way of sale, exchange or gift of an object which in the Board's opinion is unsuitable for retention in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public, or

(c) the disposal (by whatever means, including destruction) is of an object which the Board are satisfied has become useless for the purposes of their collections by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

(2A) An object may be disposed of as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) notwithstanding a trust or condition (express or implied) prohibiting or restricting the disposal of the object".
52 Clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (2)".
53 Clause 25, page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 53 en bloc. I have spoken to them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
54 Clause 29, page 17, line 3, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 98, 114, 126 to 132, 134, 136, 138 to 142, 145, 149, 152, 154 and 155, 157, 186, 190 and 198. As the House will be aware, these amendments are all identical and deal with the name of the new commission. There are two corrections to make to the list. On page 23, Amendment No. 138, line 1, uses the word "Buildments" and this should of course read "Monuments". "Page 23" should read "Page 25" in Amendment No. 155, and, in line 1, the word "Manuments" should of course read "Monuments".
The House will be aware that these amendments which we have made fulfill the undertaking which I gave at Third Reading to change the name of the commission. We had a number of discussions about various alternatives before we settled on this. I believe it is proof of your Lordships' good sense in this matter that in another place no alternative gained more support than ours, and that this name was voted into the Bill. I trust that these amendments will be welcomed in the spirit in which they are proposed. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am delighted with this amendment, because I think at the end of the day, after we had had a lot of tries at finding a better and less cumbersome name, that I suggested this name. I felt that it was the best we could get out of very difficult phrasing in the way of trying to get something shorter and a little crisper. Unfortunately, we could not, either here or in another place, find a further way of cutting it or making the name rather more jaunty. But I am very glad that in another place they agreed with what we decided here.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Clause 30, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (6).
56 Clause 30, page 19, line 6, after "architectural" insert ", traditional, artistic".
57 Clause 31, page 19, line 31, after "architectural" insert ", traditional, artistic".
58 After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
"Power of Commission to form companies.
(1) The Commission may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The objects are—

(a) the production and publication in England of books, films or other informative material relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings,

569

(b) the production in England of souvenirs relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.

(c) the sale in England of informative material relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings, or of souvenirs, and

(d) the provision in England of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for members of the public visiting ancient monuments or historic buildings.

(3) The Commission may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
(4) In this section "ancient monument" and "historic building" have the same meanings as in section 30.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any power of the Commission to undertake anything mentioned in subsection (2) by virtue of section 30".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 en bloc. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 60 to 63, 65, 99 to 101, 103 to 113, 115 to 125, 133, 137, 143 and 144, 146 to 148, 150 and 151, 153, 156, 158 to 185, 187 and 187A. This group of amendments deals with various aspects of the commission's functions. Some of them are simply tidying up amendments, such as those about consultation requirements or clarifying the position of monuments or buildings which straddle the English border. Others, however, may be of particular interest to this House being matters which occasioned much discussion at earlier stages. For example, Amendment No. 58 contains a revised power for the commission to form trading companies. It will allow a subsidiary to have wider objects and hence to undertake a wider range of presentational and promotional activities. I hope that it will be welcomed here, as it was in another place.
The House may also have noticed Amendment No. 101, which is an amended version of a provision about local government knowledge or experience among commissioners, which was inserted in this House on Report. The Government believe that, by redrafting it slightly and placing it in a separate sub-paragraph, we have managed to express the same intention without the ambiguity of the original. Similarly, Amendment No. 125 provides an amended register of gardens provision which we have brought forward for largely legal reasons. I hope that, in the light of the Government's acceptance of the principles behind these provisions, the redrafting is acceptable.
Amendment No. 105 is again a tidied-up version of an amendment which was finally voted into the Bill in another place, which requires the commision to set up a committee on ancient monuments and one on historic buildings, as well as enabling them to set up other committees. We believe that our version brings out more clearly the desired intention and I hope that the House will give it their support. Noble Lords may also be glad to see Amendment No. 184, which enables the commission to make grants to the Architectural Heritage Fund. This will provide an additional way for the commission to channel funds through the AHF to local trusts which operate revolving funds.
One amendment which needs some explanation is Amendment No. 181, which deletes the words "or building" which were added by this House in Committee. The intention was to clarify the commission's
570
powers to undertake or pay for archaeological investigations of buildings as well as land. However, the House may recall that in the 1979 Act, where these powers are to be found, the word "land" is clearly defined as including a building or monument, so not only is the addition of "or building" unnecessary but in legal terms—this is the important point—it would imply that "land" does not include "building". So if we leave things as they are, there will be two definitions of "land", one explicitly including buildings and monuments, the other implicitly excluding buildings. This would be highly confusing. After a great deal of consideration the Government have concluded therefore that because these words could have a most unfortunate effect on the interpretation of other parts of the 1979 Act they would best be deleted.
Lastly, there are the garden amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 119, 121 and 124. A great deal of pressure was exerted on the Government by this House to extend the commission's powers in this way and we have acceded. Under these amendments, the commission will be able to acquire gardens or other lands of outstanding historic interest, to accept endowments in respect of those acquisitions and to assist the National Trust in those acquisitions. In addition, Amendment No. 119 will allow the commission to acquire and dispose of any buildings in conservation areas which appear to them to be of special historic or architectural interest. This will enable the commission to operate a revolving fund in respect of such buildings as well as outstanding historic buildings.
I have briefly outlined some of the most notable amendments. The others are no less important in ensuring that the commission have the full range of powers and duties which they will need to operate effectively. Again I have to draw the attention of the House to some of the corrections of printing errors. On page 13, Amendment No. 61, "(a)" should read ""(a)"". On page 27, Amendment No. 180, subsection (5), line 3, "operation" should read "operations". On page 21, Amendment No. 124, subsection (1), line 2, after "so" insert "and". On page 28, Amendment No. 187A, line 2, "67A" should read "63A". Subsection (2) ought to read "Sub-paragraph (2)" and we delete (c). Line 4 should read line 6. After "redundancy" insert "scheme". On page 29, Amendment No. 187A, line 4, after "part" insert "with". On page 30, Amendment No. 187A, subparagraph (10), line 5, after "any" insert "other". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as one who was concerned with many of these points—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords. I apologise for intervening, but, on a point of order, the noble Lord is speaking from a Spiritual Bench.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords. I apologise. As one who was concerned with other noble Lords about many of the points which have been covered by the amendments, may I say how very warmly we

571
welcome the amendments which give to the commission full commercial powers and full freedom, in particular the recognition of gardens which are such an important part of our heritage.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, particularly about the wider trading powers. At Third Reading, I remember that we said we wanted these trading powers to be expanded in the way that they now are, so this is a great improvement. I am delighted, turning to Amendment No. 101, that local government has been included. We spent some time on this matter. Many of us were anxious that a representative of local government should be on the face of the Bill. That is now so. Turning to Amendment No. 100 and the exemption of the commission from controls, could the Minister tell me whether under this or any other legislation there is any procedure—non-statutory, if necessary—whereby national amenity societies or other bodies are able to call into question any excess of zeal which they think the commission have displayed over, for example, restoring an ancient building, if they feel the commission may be destroying, with good intentions, nevertheless, the very thing they are seeking to preserve by doing too much? Is no public inquiry procedure to be available to the Secretary of State so that such matters can be argued in public, as they should be? I doubt whether this would happen very frequently. I should have given notice to the Minister of this question if I had thought sooner about this point.
So far as this group of amendments is concerned, may I also draw attention to Amendment No. 105, about which we are very pleased. We had quite a full discussion in this House on the setting up of two committees, one covering ancient monuments and the other historic buildings. I am delighted that they are now included in the Bill. I am also very pleased that there is to be an extension of the powers to grant aid to the National Trust. Again that is a matter which we discussed in this House. I know that it will give great pleasure not only to the National Trust but also to the amenity societies which have been extremely helpful throughout the passage of the Bill. I am pleased about Amendment No. 125, which deals with the rewording of the register of gardens. When we originally pressed for it in this House the Government were rather doubtful about it, but now that they have reworded the register everybody is entirely happy. The garden amendments are greatly welcomed generally. That covers most of the points. The only one about which I have a query is Amendment No. 100.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure that I correctly followed the noble Baroness in her query, but I shall give a response now and if I find that I am incorrect perhaps I may contact her later. The answer to her problem is that if the Government set up a body to be expert in a certain field we trust it to act appropriately. There will always be disagreement between experts on issues where a decision has to rest on interpretive judgment. This does not mean that either expert is wrong. The Government are convinced that the commission will act sensibly and sensitively
572
and that they will listen to others in the field who are concerned and knowledgeable. Where a proposal was giving rise to public concern, or was likely to do so, I believe that the commission would be well advised to give their intentions a public airing in some appropriate form. That is a course which the Government would certainly wish to encourage the commission to consider in appropriate circumstances. If I have not followed the noble Baroness correctly, perhaps she will allow me to write to her on the point.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I had taken it a stage further—to being able to set up a public inquiry. However, the indication which the Minister has given will be understood by the new commission. If, however, the Minister finds that what I have said has been covered, or could be covered in the future, perhaps he will write to me about it. I do not propose at this stage to hold up the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[An amendment to Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 After Clause 31 insert the following new clause:
"Records: powers of entry.
—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land in England for the purpose of inspecting it with a view to obtaining information for inclusion in the Commission's records made under section 30(2)(d); and the following provisions of this section shall apply to any such power of entry.
(2) The power includes power for any person entering any land in exercise of the power to take with him any assistance or equipment reasonably required for the purpose to which the entry relates and to do there anything reasonably necessary for carrying out the purpose.
(3) The Commission may not authorise the power to be exercised in relation to any land unless they know or have reason to believe there is in, on or under the land an ancient momument or historic building; and in this subsection "ancient monument" and "historic building" have the meanings given by section 30(9).
(4) A person may not in the exercise of the power—

(a) enter any building or part of a building occupied as a dwelling-house without the consent of the occupier;

(b) demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless prior notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier not less than 24 hours before admission is demanded.

(5) A person seeking to enter any land in exercise of the power shall, if so required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land, produce evidence of his authority before entering.
(6) Where any works are being carried out on any land in relation to which the power is exercisable, a person acting in the exercise of the power shall comply with any reasonable requirements or conditions imposed by the person by whom the works are being carried out for the purpose of preventing interference with or delay to the works; but any requirements or conditions so imposed shall not be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of this subsection if compliance with them would in effect frustrate the exercise of the power or the purpose of the entry.
(7) Any person who intentionally obstructs a person acting in the exercise of the power shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982).
(8) Where in the exercise of the power damage has been caused to land or chattels on land, any person interested in the land or chattels may recover compensation in respect of the damage from the Commission.
(9) Any claim for compensation under subsection (8) shall he made within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for that purpose; and the power to make regulations under this subsection shall

573
be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) Any question of disputed compensation under subsection (7) shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal; and in relation to the determination of any such question sections 2(2) to (5) and 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 shall apply (construing the references in section 4 to the acquiring authority as references to the Commission)."
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
60 After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
"Monuments etc. partly situated in England.
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the Commission shall have such functions as—

(a) he thinks appropriate (having regard to their functions in relation to monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites situated in England), and

(b) are specified in the order, in relation to the parts situated in England of any monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites which are only partly so situated and which are specified in the order.

(2) For the purpose of making such provision, any such order may contain—

(a) amendments of section 30 or 31, and

(b) amendments of any section or Schedule amended by Schedule 4 (including consequential amendments relating to the parts of monuments, buildings, gardens, areas or sites not situated in England).

(3) Any such order shall have effect subject to such supplementary, provisions (which may include savings and transitionals) as may be specified in the order.
(4) Nothing in this section permits the Commission to be given a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character.
(5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
61 Clause 32, page 19, line 40, after "Parliament" insert (a).
62 Clause 32, page 19, line 41, at end insert—
"(b) defray such expenditure of the Commission as the Treasury may approve".
63 Clause 35, page 20, line 18, after (6), insert "17(3A) and (3B)".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 60 to 63. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 63.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Page 20, line 23, at end insert—
"(5) A provision brought into force by an order under this section shall have effect subject to any saving or transitional specified in the order.
(6) Subsection (5) applies to the provisions of Schedule 4 notwithstanding the savings there specified, but nothing shall be specified under that subsection if it would conflict with any such saving".
The Earl of Avon: My Lord, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64. This amendment enables a Minister of the Crown to make provision for exceptions or for specific transitional arrangements when particular clauses are brought into force by any order made under Clause 36(4). It also ensures that any such savings or transitionals made in respect of Schedule 4 must not conflict with any existing savings or transitionals already contained in the schedule. This amendment is a common form in many other Acts and provides helpful safeguards. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
65 Clause 36, page 20, line 26, at end insert "and except so far as section (Monuments etc. partly situated in England) gives power to amend any enactment which extends to Scotland.".
66 Schedule 1, page 21, line 9, at beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (1B)".
67 Schedule 1, page 21, line 11, leave out from "Crown" to end of line 13 and insert—
"(1A) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 2(4), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction.".
68 Schedule 1, page 21, line 28, leave out "the crafts" and insert "craft".
69 Schedule 1, page 21, line 28, after "management" insert "industrial relations".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 to 69. I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
70 Page 23, line 3, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78, 84, 93, 97 and 102. The Bill provides that offers of employment shall be made by each board and commission to staff, the terms and conditions of which must be on the whole not less

575
favourable than an individual's existing terms and conditions. Any dispute about whether such terms are less favourable will be referred to an industrial tribunal.
These amendments provide that, in the event of a dispute, the complaint must be referred to the tribunal within three months of the date of the offer or, in exceptional cases, within such period as the tribunal considers reasonable in the circumstances. This will ensure that any such disputes (and we hope there will be none) will be settled promptly. I am sure that the House will agree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I remember that at Committee and Report stages in this House we had quite a lot of discussion on the question of terms of employment under the proposed new set up. I expressed some of the comments and anxieties which had been conveyed to me by the unions on this question. The amendments we now have before us both clarify the whole situation and, I hope, put to rest many of the very real anxieties and concerns that were expressed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
71 Page 23, line 20, leave out "four", and insert "the greater of—

(a) four, and

(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one).".

72 Page 23, line 26, after "expenses" insert "or loss of remuneration".
73 Page 23, line 37, leave out from first "of" to end of line 39 and insert "the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921 which relate to appropriation accounts—".
74 Page 24, line 13, at end insert—
"(4A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board".
75 Page 23, line 21, at beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (1B)".
76 Page 23, line 23, leave out from "Crown" to end of line 25 and insert—
"(1A) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 9(4), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction.".
77 Page 23, line 40, after "management", insert "industrial relations".
78 Page 26, line 11, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under
576
this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.".
79 Page 23, line 28, leave out "four" and insert "the greater of—

(a) four, and

(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one).".

80 Page 23, line 34, after "expenses" insert "or loss of remuneration."
81 Page 27, line 2, leave out from first "of" to end of line 4 and insert "the provision of the Exchequer and Audit Departmants Acts 1866 and 1921 which relate to appropriation accounts—"
82 Page 23, line 21, at end insert—
"(4A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board."
83 Page 28, line 6, after "management", insert "industrial relations."
84 Page 29, line 27, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph."
85 Page 23, line 44, leave out "three", and insert "the greater of—

(a) three, and

(b) the number equal to one third of the number of trustees at the time concerned (treating any fraction as one)."

86 Page 30, line 3, after "expenses" insert "or loss of remuneration."
87 Page 30, line 30, leave out "30 November" and insert "31 August."
88 Page 30, line 39, after second "with" insert "the second."
89 Page 31, line 12, at end insert—
"(5A) Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board."
90 Page 30, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
"32. Subject to sub-paragraph (2A), the Board shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) The trustees and their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Board's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(2A) In relation to any matter as respects which the Board act by virtue of a direction under section 22(5), the Board shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Minister giving the direction.".
91 Page 31, line 45, leave out "this part" and insert "the following provisions".
92 Page 32, line 3, after "management", insert "industrial relations".
93 Page 33, line 23, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.

577
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph."
94 Page 34, line 3, after "expenses", insert "or loss of remuneration."
95 Page 34, line 28, leave out "30 November" and insert "31 August."
96 Page 34, line 37, after second "with" insert "the second."
97 Schedule 2, page 36, line 12, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph."
98 Schedule 3, page 36, line 23, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
99 Schedule 3, page 36, line 25, at beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (1B)".
100 Schedule 3, page 36, line 27, leave out from "Crown" to end of line 30 and insert—
"(1A) The members of the Commission and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
(1B) In relation to any matter as respects which the Commission act by virtue of a direction under section 31(2) the Commission shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for the Environment.".
101 Schedule 3, page 37, line 6, leave out from "finance" to end of line 7 and insert—
"(3A) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of at least one of them having knowledge of local government (as well as knowledge or experience of one or more of the subjects mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)).".
102 Schedule 3, page 38, line 38, at end insert—
"(7) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
(8) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.".
103 Schedule 3, page 39, line 3, after "contract", insert "in which the member is interested".
104 Schedule 3, page 39, line 5, after "matter" insert "in which the member is interested".
105 Schedule 3, page 39, line 26, leave out from "Commission" to second "of" in line 27 and insert "shall constitute at least one committee to advise them on ancient monuments and at least one to advise them on historic buildings, and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects".
106 Schedule 3, page 39, line 33, after "expenses", insert "or loss of remuneration".
107 Schedule 3, page 39, page 40, line 26, after "shall", insert—
"(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and (b)".
108 Schedule 3, page 39, line 31, after "accounts", insert "(including any statement prepared under this paragraph)".
109 Schedule 3, page 39, line 32, leave out from "State" to end of line 34.
110 Schedule 3, page 39, line 36, after "is", insert "(a)".
111 Schedule 3, page 39, line 38, at end insert "or
(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.".
112 Schedule 3, page 39, line 41, after "with", insert "the second".
113 Schedule 3, page 39, page 41, line 2, after "prepared", insert "and audited".
114 Schedule 3, page 39, line 24, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
115 Schedule 4, page 43, line 28, leave out "situated in Scotland or Wales" and insert "not situated in England.".
116 Schedule 4, page 43, line 30, leave out "situated in Scotland or Wales" and insert "not situated in England.".
117 Schedule 4, page 43, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
118 Schedule 4, page 43, line 46, at end insert "if the arrangements relate to property situated in England.".
119 Schedule 4, page 44, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert—

"(b) any building which is situated in England and in an area designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and which appears to the Commission to be of special historic or architectural interest;

(c) any land which is situated in England and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any building mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection;

(d) any garden or other land which is situated in England and which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest."

120 Schedule 4, page 43, line 14 leave out "Subject to subsection (4) of this section."
121 Schedule 4, page 45, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 21, and insert—

"(a) any building which is situated in England and which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest;

(b) any land which is situated in England and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any such building; or

(c) any garden or other land which is situated in England and which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest."

122 Schedule 4, page 45, line 25, leave out "situated in Scotland or Wales" and insert "not situated in England."
123 Schedule 4, page 45, line 29, after "property", insert "the income from which is applicable for or towards the upkeep of property situated in England."
124 Schedule 4, page 46, line 44, at end insert—
"Endowment of gardens.
8AA—(1) Where any instrument coming into operation after the establishment of the Commission contains a provision purporting to be a gift of property to the Commission upon trust to use the income thereof (either for a limited time or in perpetuity) for or towards the upkeep of a garden or other land acquired or accepted by the Commission under section 5A(1)(d) of this Act, or a garden or other land which the Commission propose so to acquire or accept, or for or towards the upkeep of any such garden or other land together with other property situated in England, the Commission may accept the gift, and if they do so, and the provision does not constitute a charitable trust, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
(2) The validity of the gift and of the trust to use the income as aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as "the endowment trust") shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been affected by any rule of law or equity which would not have affected their validity if the trust had been charitable.
(3) In relation to the property (of whatsoever nature) comprised in the gift and any property for the time being

579
representing that property (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the trust fund") the Commission shall during the continuance of the endowment trust have the like powers of management, disposition and investment as, in the case of land held on trust for sale, are conferred by law on the trustees for sale in relation to the land and to the proceeds of sale thereof; but this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to any additional or larger powers conferred on the Commission by the trust instrument.
(4) If while the endowment trust continues an event happens such that immediately thereafter the Commission are not entitled to any interest in the garden or other land to which the trust relates, and apart from this subsection the endowment trust would not then be determined or be deemed to have failed, then on the happening of that event the endowment trust shall cease by virtue of this subsection and the trust shall devolve accordingly as on a failure of the trust.
(5) If the trust instrument contains a provision whereby on the failure or determination of the endowment trust the trust fund purports to be given, or to be directed to be held, on charitable trusts, the validity of that gift or direction shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, affected by any rule of law or equity relating to perpetuities."
125 Schedule 4, page 46, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 47 and insert—
"8B.—(1) This section applies where the Commission compile a register of gardens and other land situated in England and appearing to them to be of special historic interest.
(2) The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after including in the register an entry relating to any garden or land, notify the persons mentioned in subsection (3) of this section of the inclusion and send to them a copy of the entry.
(3) The persons are—

(a) the owner and (if the owner is not the occupier) the occupier of the garden or land,

(b) any county planning authority, and any district planning authority, in whose area the garden or land (or any part of the garden or land) is situated, and

(c) the Secretary' of State.".

126 Schedule 4, page 47, line 14, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
127 Schedule 4, page 47, line 26, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
128 Schedule 4, page 47, line 35, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
129 Schedule 4, page 47, line 43, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
130 Schedule 4, page 47, line 48, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
131 Schedule 4, page 48, line 1, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
132 Schedule 4, page 48, line 4, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
133 Schedule 4, page 48, line 10, after "section", insert "in relation to a building or part situated in England".
134 Schedule 4, page 48, line 10, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
135 Schedule 4, page 48, line 13, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
136 Schedule 4, page 48, line 18, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
137 Schedule 4, page 48, line 20, leave out "without the consent of the Secretary of State"; and insert "unless—

(a) the land is situated in England, and

(b) the Secretary of State has consented."

138 Schedule 4, page 48, line 23, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
139 Schedule 4, page 48, line 29, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
140 Schedule 4, page 49, line 9, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
141 Schedule 4, page 49, line 46, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
142 Schedule 4, page 50, line 13, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
143 Schedule 4, page 50, line 14, at end insert—
"(2B) Where the Secretary of State, after consulting with the Commission, notifies a local, county or district planning authority in writing that subsection (2A) of this section shall not affect the authority as regards any notice relating to any kind of application specified in the notification, then that subsection shall not affect the authority as regards any such notice.
(2C) The Secretary of State shall send to the Commission a copy of any notification made under subsection (2B) of this section."."
144 Schedule 4, page 50, line 14, at end insert—
"(3) Nothing in this paragraph affects a notice published before the appointed day".
145 Schedule 4, page 50, line 18, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
146 Schedule 4, page 50, line 19, at end insert "and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
"The Secretary of State shall not approve under this subsection any list compiled by the Commission if the list contains any building situated outside England."."
147 Schedule 4, page 50, line 21, at end insert "and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
"The Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission under this subsection only in relation to buildings which are situated in England."."
148 Schedule 4, page 50, line 29, at end insert—
"16A. At the end of section 100(1) of the 1971 Act (power of Secretary of State to serve listed building enforcement notice) there shall be inserted—
"Where the land is situated in England, the Secretary of State shall also consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England before he serves a notice under this subsection."."
149 Schedule 4, page 50, line 35, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
150 Schedule 4, page 51, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
"(6) Nothing in sub-paragraph (3) affects works in respect of which a notice was served under section 101(5) of the 1971 Act before the appointed day".
151 Schedule 4, page 51, line 9, at end insert—
"17A. After section 114(3) of the 1971 Act (compulsory acquisition of listed building in need of repair) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England before he makes or confirms a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition by virtue of this section of any building situated in England.".
17B. After section 115(3) of the 1971 Act (repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition under section 114) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England before he serves or withdraws a repairs notice in relation to a building situted in England.".
17C. After section 277(6) of the 1971 Act (designation of conservation areas) there shall he inserted—

581
"(6A) Where a designation under subsection (1) or (2) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the first reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to him and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; and where a designation under subsection (4) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the second reference to a local planning authority were a reference to the authority and the Commission.".".
152 Schedule 4, page 51, line 39, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
153 Schedule 4, page 51, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (8).
154 Schedule 4, Page 52, line 4, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings- and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
155 Schedule 4, Page 53, line 8, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
156 Schedule 4, Page 53, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (13).
157 Schedule 4, Page 53, line 18, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
158 Schedule 4, Page 54, line 8, leave out "Sub-paragraphs (2),(3) and (5) do" and insert "sub-paragraph (5) does".
159 Schedule 4, Page 55, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
160 Schedule 4, Page 55, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
161 Schedule 4, Page 55, line 38, at end insert—
"(2) Nothing in this paragraph affects an authorisation given before the appointed day.".
162 Schedule 4, Page 55, line 44, after "monument", insert "have been or".
163 Schedule 4, Page 56, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
164 Schedule 4, Page 58, line 39, leave out "obtain the consent of" and insert "consult with".
165 Schedule 4, Page 59, line 40, at end insert—
"(4) At the end of the section there shall he inserted—
"(9) References to an ancient monument in subsection (1A) above, and in subsection (3) above so far as it applies for the purposes of subsection (1A), shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.".
166 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 8, at end insert ", and at the end there shall be inserted—
"The Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission before he makes any regulations under this subsection in relation only to monuments situated in England.".
167 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 31, after "State", insert "(in the first place)".
168 Schedule 4, Page 61, line 6, leave out "situated outside" and insert "not situated in".
169 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 12, leave out "or (g) above without the consent or and insert "above without consulting".
170 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 13, at end insert—
"(6) The Commission may not enter into an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(g) above without the consent of the Secretary of State.".
171 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
172 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 24, at end insert—
"(3B) References to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.".
173 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 35, at end insert—
"(3B) References to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.
174 Schedule 4, Page 62, line 3, leave out from "from" to end of line 8 and insert""(as the case may require)" to the end there shall be substituted "the Commission or the local authority in question (as the case may require)".".
175 Schedule 4, Page 62, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
176 Schedule 4, Page 62, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
177 Page 63, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
178 Schedule 4, Page 63, line 14, leave out paragraph 52 and insert—
"52.—(1) In section 37 of the 1979 Act (exemptions from certain offences) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"The Secretary of State shall consult with the
582
Commission before giving or withdrawing a direction under this subsection in relation to land situated in England.". ".
179 Schedule 4, Page 63, line 37, at end insert "(if the investigating authority is not the Commission).
(11) On varying or revoking a direction given under subsection (8) above in relation to a site situated in England the Secretary of State shall notify the Commission (giving particulars of the effect of any variation) if the investigating authority is not the Commission.".
180 Schedule 4, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
"(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) affects the right of an investigating authority to excavate a site in respect of which an operations notice was served before the appointed day."
181 Schedule 4, page 64, line 30, leave out "or building".
182 Schedule 4, page 64, line 32, at end insert "; and the reference to an ancient monument in this subsection shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission."
183 Schedule 4, page 64, line 43, leave out "(if it is situated elsewhere)" and insert "(in any other case)".
184 Schedule 4, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
"58A.—(1) Section 49 of the 1979 Act (grants by Secretary of State to Architectural Heritage Fund) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words from "institution" to the end there shall be substituted "Architectural Heritage Fund".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Commission may make grants to the Architectural Heritage Fund for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions in, or in relation to, England.".
(4) In subsection (2) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)".
(5) At the end of the section there shall be inserted—
"(3) In this section 'the Architectural Heritage Fund' means the institution registered under that name under the Charities Act I 9602.'.".
185 Schedule 4, page 65, line 7, at end insert—
"59A. In section 54(1)(b) of the 1979 Act (treatment and preservation of finds) after "(4)(b)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(2)(a)".
186 Schedule 4, page 65, line 15, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission".
187 Schedule 4, page 65, line 20, at end insert—
"(1A) After paragraph 2 there shall be inserted—
"2A. As soon as practicable after receiving an application for scheduled monument consent in relation to a monument situated in England, the Secretary of State shall send a copy of the application to the Commission.".
187A Schedule 4, page 66, line 13, at end insert—
"Pastoral Measure 1983 (No. 1)
63A.—(1) Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 (transfer of redundant churches) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in a diocesan board of finance, whether in pursuance of a pastoral scheme or a redundancy scheme or pending the making of a redundancy scheme, the board may, with the approval of the bishop and the Commissioners, enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested in the board;
(d) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 applies, the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested;" and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3)".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (1)(c) or (d) without the consent of the Secretary of State.".
(4) In subsection (2)(a) after "The Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England", after "him" there shall be inserted "or them" and after "his" there shall be inserted "or their", and in subsection (2)(c) after "the Secretary of State" there shall he inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England".
(5) In subsection (3) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission".
(6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Before giving his consent under subsection (3) in relation to a building or part situated in England, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.".
(7) In subsection (4) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)".
(8) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (4) unless—

(a) the land is situated in England, and

(b) the Secretary of State has consented.".

(9) In subsection (5) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England."
(10) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) Where a redundant building (or part) situated in England has been acquired for its preservation by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) either with or without any other land so situated, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England may by agreement with the Secretary of State undertake on his behalf the management and preservation of the building (or part) together with the other land (if any).
(7) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection (4) acquired land situated in England for its maintenance with a building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the maintenance of the land on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(8) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection 5 acquired for their preservation the contents of a redundant building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the preservation of the contents on behalf of the Secretary of State.".
189 Schedule 5, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
"1A. In Schedule 1 to that Act (Institutions to which certain transfers may be made) the following entries shall be inserted in the appropriate places—

The Armouries

The British Library

The British Museum (Natural History)."

190 Schedule 4, page 66, leave out line 29 and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission."
191 Schedule 4, page 66, line 35, leave out "At the end of and insert "In".
192 Schedule 4, page 66, line 37, leave out "added" and insert "inserted after paragraph (c)."
193 Schedule 4, page 66, line 38, leave out "(j)" and insert "(ca)."
194 Schedule 4, page 66, line 39, leave out "(k)" and insert "(cb)."
195 Schedule 4, page 66, line 40, leave out "(l)" and insert "(cc)."
196 Schedule 4, page 66, line 41, leave out "(m)" and insert "(cd)."
197 Schedule 4, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
"British Museum Act 1963
4. At the end of section 9(1) of the British Museum Act 1963 (power of trustees to transfer pictures to certain institutions) there shall be added "or to the National Gallery Trustees or to the Tate Gallery Trustees".
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c.78)
5. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (listed building consent) the following shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—
"1(A) Where directions are in force under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the Secretary of State may give to any local planning authority a direction that in the case of such descriptions of applications for listed building consent as are specified in the direction, paragraph 5 or (as the case may be) paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall apply in relation to the authority.
(1B) so long as the direction is in force, paragraph 5 or 6 (as the case may be) shall apply in the case of any application of any description so specified—

(a) made to the authority after the coming into force of the direction, or

(b) made to them (hut not disposed of by their granting or refusing consent) before the coming into force of the direction,

notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph."
British Library Act 1972 (c.54)
6. At the end of section 3(4) of the British Library Act 1972 there shall be inserted—
"This subsection does not apply to pictures (as to which there is a power of transfer in section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963)."."
198 In the Title, line 7, leave out "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and insert "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission."
199 In the Title, line 11, leave out "repeal section 4(2) of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954" and insert "amend certain enactments relating to the heritage."
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 to 199 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments—and I should like to make it clear that I spoke to Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 when speaking to Amendment No. 54.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [74] as first printed for the Commons]
1 Leave out Clause 1.
2 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
"Particulars of agreements
.—(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person ("the occupier") is entitled—

(a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and

(b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.

(2) Within three months of the making of an agreement to which this Act applies, the owner of the protected site ("the owner") shall give to the occupier a written statement which—

(a) specifies the names and addresses of the parties and the date of commencement of the agreement;

(b) includes particulars of the land on which the occupier is entitled to station the mobile home sufficient to identify it;

(c) sets out the express terms of the agreement;

(d) sets out the terms implied by section (Terms of agreements) (1) below; and

(e) complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) If the agreement was made before the day on which this Act comes into force, the written statement shall be given within six months of that day.
(4) Any reference in subsections (2) or (3) above to the making of an agreement to which this Act applies includes a reference to any variation of an agreement by virtue of which the agreement becomes one to which this Act applies.
(5) If the owner fails to comply with this section, the occupier may apply to the court for an order requiring the owner so to comply.
(6) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas.".

3 Leave out Clause 2.
4 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
"Terms of agreements.
.—(1) In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement.
(2) The court may, on the application of either party made within six months of the giving of the statement under section (Particulars of agreements) (2) above, order that there shall be implied in the agreement terms concerning the matters mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(3) The court may, on the application of either party made within the said period of six months, by order vary or delete any express term of the agreement.
(4) On an application under this section, the court shall make such provision as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances.".
5 Clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".
6 Clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".
8 Clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".
9 Clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out "complies with the requirements" and insert "concludes terms implied by virtue".
10 Clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out "made under it" and insert "to which it applies".
11 Clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out "made under it" and insert "to which it applies".
12 Clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out lines 12 to 14.
13 Clause 5, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
"(1A) In relation to an agreement to which this Act applies—

(a) any reference in this Act to the owner includes a reference to any person who is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the agreement by virtue of subsection (1) of section 3 above; and

(b) subject to subsection (4) of that section, any reference in this Act to the occupier includes a reference to any person who is entitled to the benefit of and bound by the agreement by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of that section.".

14 Clause 6, page 5, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 14 en bloc. I should like to take this opportunity of
586
speaking also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28. These new clauses and the consequential amendments will replace the system of written agreements on which the Bill was previously based with a combination of implied terms and express terms. The Bill has been amended quite substantially since it left your Lordships' House—largely in the light of views expressed during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. It was a good Bill when it left, but I believe your Lordships will agree that it is an even better Bill now.
After extensive consultations these new clauses were introduced. They oblige the site owner to provide a resident with a written statement setting out the implied terms and the express terms of his agreement with the resident. The express terms are those which the site owner and the resident have agreed between them; that is, upon subjects not covered by the implied terms. Either the resident or the site owner may then apply to the court within six months of the date on which the written statement is provided to ask that any of the express terms be varied or deleted from the agreement, or to ask that terms concerning the subjects listed in Part II of Schedule 1 shall be added to the agreement. The written statement will also have to comply with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Those are the bare bones of the approach set out in the new clauses and amendments. We have accepted that an element of implied terms will further strengthen the protection which the Bill provides to residents. We have, however, been careful to limit the scope of the implied terms to those subjects which need to be covered by them—and it would not be fair or reasonable to push the balance of the Bill too far against the site owner. This new approach will leave them free to negotiate with their residents on a local basis those matters that should be negotiated locally, such as pitch fees or the services the site owner will provide, and on the details of the resident's obligations.
At the same time, the written statement which the site owner must provide will set out all the terms of the agreement between the site owner and the resident, so that both sides may know the basis of their relationship. In that respect, we believe that the written statement will serve much the same purpose as the written agreement in the existing Bill. The Bill will make a significant difference to the lives of many people—about 160,000 in England, Scotland and Wales—who live on mobile home sites. The Bill retains a fair balance between site owner and resident.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, having spoken at Second Reading with some reservations on this Bill, may I warmly thank the Government for incorporating measures which have resolved any doubts I may have held about a Bill that is much needed and greatly welcomed by owners of mobile homes?
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I apologise for having missed a few seconds of the noble Lord's opening speech, but I have anticipated what he said. I welcome

587
the amendments which are before the House, and I understand that a number of other amendments are being taken with the main amendment. I should like also to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, at this stage of the Bill, which has previously and quite ably been dealt with by his noble friend Lord Bellwin. During the various stages of this Bill noble Lords of all parties have pressed for changes which will give greater protection to mobile home occupiers and to clarify the situation for site owners, so that everyone will know where they stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said—and I know that his noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will agree—that it is important to achieve a balance between the parties. We made the point earlier that those people who are mobile home occupiers do not, for a very good reason, have the help of solicitors and legal advisers, possibly, although I believe that they in fact need that kind of help on occasions. They are, after all, making a very substantial investment, often equal to that made by those in other forms of housing. Therefore, the Bill needs to give the kind of clarification which has been introduced in another place and which your Lordships are being asked to endorse today.
There have been some substantial changes made to the Bill in another place. Before making these changes the Government consulted the various interests and bodies concerned, including the National Federation of Site Operators, the National Caravan Council, the Mobile Home Residents' Association, local authorities, the National Consumer Council and others. The Government should be thanked for the agreement they have reached on this matter with members of all parties in order to achieve the changes which have been brought about. I believe the balance is fairer now. It would be unjust to imply that most site owners are not good site landlords, but we have to acknowledge the concern of everyone involved that good facilities should be provided in order to create a harmonious environment. This is greatly helped by the Bill being drafted in such a way, with implied terms and the other concessions to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made reference. All this will help towards the proper working of the legislation.
With those few words, I should like to express the appreciation of my noble friends, and indeed those of other parties in our team of people, who will speak for themselves anyway, in saying that we welcome the changes. There are aspects, to which I might make reference later, which we should have liked to have seen in the Bill, but at this stage we welcome the amendments which have been moved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we, too, would welcome the amendments, which followed the discussions we had in this House; and we are very pleased to know that the Government gave further consideration to what was said by your Lordships. A solution has been reached which we think is beneficial both to the residents of mobile homes and to the site operators in clarifying the agreements that will be made between them and in ensuring that the number of disputes following the passing of this Act will be brought down to a minimum. We are very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these amendments, which have been made in another place.
588
There is just one point on which I should like to ask the noble Lord's advice, and that is why the particulars of agreements have to be notified to the occupier within three months of the making of an agreement where the agreement is arrived at after the passing of the Act, whereas if the agreement was arrived at before the coming into force of the Act the site operator is given six months to supply that written statement. This was not something we had in the original Clause 1. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could explain that. I am sure there is a good reason for it. In general, we share the welcome which has been expressed by other noble Lords and the noble Baroness to these new clauses and amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their welcome to these amendments. I very much regret that I am not able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this afternoon on the question of the varying periods of time allowed as between future agreements and those that were in force or might have been in force under the terms of the 1975 Act, which now, on the passing of this Bill, will automatically obtain for those people who have agreements on mobile homes sites. I think it is largely a matter of administrative detail. Perhaps I could set out separately, in a day or two, the exact implications of those periods which the noble Lord mentioned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 6, page 5, line 5, leave out "three months" and insert "one week".
16 Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out from "passed" to end of line 8.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The Government have on this occasion taken the unusual step of proposing to Parliament that the Bill should come into force only one week after Royal Assent. This is in order to minimise the danger that site owners might attempt to deny their residents the protection of the Bill by taking action before the Bill comes into force. In parenthesis, I think that perhaps this is in part the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because those who never had an agreement at all under the 1975 Act, or, indeed, those who might well have had an agreement under the 1975 Act, would find that had they exercised their options—originally, the minimium period was five years, and there was an option of a further three years—it would be this year, in a matter of weeks only, that those options would run out. I think this is in part the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was seeking.
The Bill is in its final stages. I do not think it is unduly premature to say that it is Parliament's wish that mobile home residents should enjoy the protection that the Bill will provide. These amendments will reduce as far as is possible the danger that site owners will be able to prevent that happening between now and commencement. Therefore, subject to the approval of your Lordships' House, we hope it will be

589
possible for the Bill to receive Royal Assent and come into force before the end of May. Any resident who is still on a mobile home site, provided his right to be there has not already been brought to an end by then, will, as I have said, be entitled to the protection of the Bill from its commencement date. From that date residents will have security of tenure and a right to sell on site.
I should perhaps add that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 provides that a notice to determine a residential contract on a mobile home site cannot take effect in less than 28 days. These amendments, therefore, bring the Bill into force one week after Royal Assent. Normally, of course, we would expect a period of perhaps two months, but if the rights which the Bill provides are to be available to as many people as possible, and if it is to be effective in protecting those it is designed to protect, we must do what we can to limit the ability of a site owner to avoid that obligation. That means bringing the Bill into force just one week after Royal Assent, as these two amendments in fact will.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, we on this side would thank the noble Lord for the information he has given. We feel that the one week after Royal Assent provision is really the very best thing the Government can do, because that has tightened the loophole completely. As the noble Lord rightly said, if it had gone on for three months there might have been harassment on some of the sites, knowing that the Bill was coming into operation. So that final closing of a loophole is something for which we would commend the Government.
While I am on my feet, may I also say that we are very much indebted to the Government for trying to put the Bill into plain English, as we asked them to do. We know it is difficult to put it into plain English, but they have really tried, and for that we compliment them.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I say a word of thanks to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and echo the endorsement expressed by the noble Baroness of the principles underlying these amendments. They have a great deal to commend them. I believe that there might have been one or two unscrupulous site operators—no more—who would have attempted to take advantage of a three-month gap had it been left in the Bill. I am sure there will be no corresponding disadvantage, bearing in mind that everybody has known that the Bill is on its way since your Lordships first began to consider it at the beginning of December last year. One hopes that both site operators and residents will have been thinking about the making of the agreements into which they will now be able to enter, and that no-one will feel pressured as a result of the reduction from three months to one week. We are grateful to the Government for these amendments. We think this is commonsense and will be beneficial to both sides.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Schedule 1, page 6, leave out lines 6 to 16.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I have already spoken to this amendment; it was in the first block.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Schedule 1, page 6, line 20, after "5" insert"5A".
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The same applies here, my Lords.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Schedule 1, page 6, line 38, leave out from "agreement" to end of line 41 and insert—
"forthwith if, on the application of the owner, the court—

(a) is satisfied that the occupier has breached a term of the agreement and, after service of a notice to remedy the breach, has not complied with the notice within a reasonable time; and

(b) considers it reasonable for the agreement to be terminated."

4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. Without this amendment the Bill would allow a site owner to terminate an agreement on the ground that the resident has breached its terms and, after receiving notice to remedy the breach, has not done so within a reasonable time. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the site owner to terminate an agreement on this ground only after an application to the court, and to give the court discretion in deciding whether to grant the application.
The amendment is concerned with the site owner's ability to terminate the agreement. The court must be satisfied that the resident has breached the agreement, that he has been served with a proper notice to remedy the breach and has failed to comply with that notice within a reasonable time. Taken together with other procedures for termination of agreements contained in the Bill, this amendment ensures that such an agreement to which the Bill applies can be brought to an end only with the consent of a court. It will be the site owner who terminates the agreement rather than the court, but he will need the court's approval.
This was another issue raised in the consultation letter that was issued after the Committee stage in another place. Certainly none of those who responded to that consultation letter was opposed to this requirement that the site owner must go to court. We have also accepted that it would be right to allow the court to decide whether or not it was reasonable that it should grant an application for termination. Without that discretion the court might find itself constrained

591
to terminate an agreement for trivial reasons. However, the court will not be able to suspend the site owner's right to terminate. Once the application has been granted he can terminate the agreement forthwith. This amendment is a valuable addition to the protection which the Bill provides for residents, but it will not disadvantage responsible site owners.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we welcome this amendment as an improvement to the Bill, as the Minister has said. It gives greater protection and it improves the previous situation where the site owner himself could terminate an agreement, whereas now the court will have to do so. That appears to be a much greater concession than is actually the case, because the definition of "the court" in Clause 5(a) states:
"in relation to England and Wales, the county court for the district in which the protected site is situated or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement made under it to arbitration, the arbitrator;
and in Scotland it will be the arbiter.
As we have said at previous stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House, we all have great confidence in the courts as we know them—the county courts and other forms of court—but when an arbitrator has to be agreed between the two parties concerned, the site owner and the mobile home occupier, it can be anyone who is acceptable to both parties. In that situation we feel that the mobile home occupier is at a disadvantage because the site owner can put forward anyone, suggesting that the arbitrator who is recommended is impartial or, indeed, is well fitted in all these matters to deal adequately with the situation. It could well be—and I think I used the term previously—a friend of the family, the greengrocer or anyone else who happens to be agreed between the two parties. We do not think that is satisfactory.
If the arbitrator, who can be someone with little or no experience of these important matters, can agree to a termination when acting as a court, there is not the security for which I am sure we all wish. It means that the occupiers are still generally worse off than owner-occupiers of ordinary homes and the tenants of public and private dwellings. I know that the Minister, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the earlier stages of the Bill, did not seem happy about rent officers and others being brought in to help. My noble friends and I tabled an amendment to recommend that an arbitrator should be appointed after consultation with the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, for instance, or the rent officer, whose experience and background is accepted on all sides as being proper and adequate. But here in Clause 5 "the court" can be an arbitrator, and that is far from being as satisfactory as we would wish. However, having said that, we appreciate the improvement which has been put forward and agreed, and which the Government are recommending to your Lordships.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think perhaps it might be your Lordships' wish if I further commented on this question of arbitration. I know that it has
592
caused the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and other noble Lords some concern. I am sorry that he still feels this concern.
The Bill provides for the choice of an arbitrator to be freely made by both parties. If there is concern that an unscrupulous site owner might persuade a resident to accept an arbitrator who is perhaps anything other than impartial—perhaps his brother-in-law, his agent or some other person; I am sure the noble Lord opposite bears no to greengrocers in the High Street—the resident has the opportunity to agree or disagree.
The Government will be producing a booklet in the housing booklet series to explain this new legislation and to replace the existing mobile homes booklet. The booklet will be available free from council offices, from housing aid centres and also from the Department of the Environment. It will be produced very soon after Royal Assent of this Bill, and we hope that it will be available in a very few weeks' time—certainly well before residents will need to decide what action to take with regard to the written statement they receive from the site owner. Your Lordships will recall that it is obligatory upon the site owner to provide such a statement. The booklet will set out exactly what rights the owner-occupier has with regard to owner-occupation and the use of an arbitrator.
Additionally, in considering this matter we felt that we were talking here not of small sums of money but certainly of smaller sums than one might envisage with the more traditional type of house; perhaps a mobile home of up to, say, £25,000, but more likely between £10,000 and £15,000. To enlist the aid of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors would undoubtedly cost considerably more money than going to other sources of arbitration. Provided that both parties understand exactly what the arbitrator is to do, we can see no great difficulty.
In addition, even where the resident—the owner-occupier—agrees to the appointment of an arbitrator whom he knows to be related to or in some other way concerned with the site owner, the Arbitration Act 1950 still allows him to go to court to have the appointment revoked. If the resident does not find out about the relationship between the arbitrator and the site owner until the arbitrator has made his judgment, it will still be open to the owner-occupier to go to court to have that judgment set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator was biased. It simply is not the case that the resident is unprotected against the appointment of a biased arbitrator. As noble Lords will readily recognise, arbitrators may offer a much quicker and simpler method of resolving disputes than perhaps the courts. I believe that the alternative that is provided in the Bill should really meet all reasonable expectations of an arbitration service in a matter of this kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to "if" in line 43 and insert—
"5A. The owner shall be entitled to terminate the agreement forthwith".
21 Page 7, line 3, leave out "(2) The court" and insert "6.—(1) The owner.".
22 Page 7, line 11, leave out "(2)" and insert "(1)".
23 Page 7, line 16, after "5", insert ", 5A".
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments in the first block that I moved earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Page 7, leave out lines 24 to 32.
25 Page 7, line 33, at beginning insert "Where the occupier sells the mobile home, and assigns the agreement, as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above,".
26 Page 7, line 33, leave out from "on" to "by" in line 34 and insert "the sale at a rate not exceeding such rates as may be specified.".
4.43 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26. These amendments strengthen the position of residents who wish to sell their mobile home. The amendments remove the obligation on owner-occupiers—residents—to give site owners first refusal on the sale of a mobile home. This series of amendments follows an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and is largely the result of further consideration of arguments which were put by noble Lords in this House on the occasion.
Noble Lords will be aware that it is on the question of sales that the worst abuses on mobile home sites are said to have taken place. These alleged abuses have arisen in cases where occupiers were not protected at all by any legislation—where, in fact, they did not have agreements under the 1975 Act. Many owner-occupiers fell into that category. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt that the right of first refusal, which the 1975 Act gave to site owners and which the initial wording of the Bill retains, puts site owners in an unusually strong position when a mobile home is to be sold. If the site owner wants to buy the mobile home himself, and he has the right of first refusal, his bargaining position is both exceptional and, we now accept, excessive.
My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State therefore introduced these amendments in another place to remove the right of first refusal. These amendments will not unduly weaken the position of site owners. There will be nothing to stop a site owner buying the mobile home himself if he wishes to do so. However, he will be in competition with other potential buyers; but, of course, he has the advantage that no commission will be payable on the price he pays for the mobile home, as it would be if someone else bought it. He can make an offer at a price reduced by the amount of commission that he would receive if the home was sold to a third party—in effect, at a discount.
The site owner will also have the right to approve a
594
potential purchaser, and that approval is not to be unreasonably withheld. But unscrupulous site owners will be unable to misuse the right of first refusal by forcing occupiers who wish to sell to accept an unfairly low price.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also announced that the Government would fix the maximum level of commission a site owner can charge on a sale at 10 per cent. This would be by order following Royal Assent. This 10 per cent. compares with the maximum of 15 per cent. fixed by another Administration in 1976 for sales under the 1975 Act, and it follows a consultation paper on the level of commission which my noble friend announced on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House on 18th November.
In removing the right of first refusal and proposing a maximum of 10 per cent. commission, the Government have put together a package that will significantly improve the position of residents, but will certainly not drive site owners out of business. Here, as elsewhere in the Bill, the intention has been to keep a balance between site owners and residents, and to create a framework that will enable this way of life to flourish and develop in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords. I am pleased to say that we welcome the amendments moved by the noble Lord. Once again, they help the Bill. One of the main concerns about the need for a Bill at all was the fact that mobile home occupiers do not normally have the kind of security which those living in other forms of accommodation almost take for granted. They are not covered by the legislation which covers others. Concern arose over the situation of, for example, elderly people wanting other accommodation or young people with families wanting other accommodation. When it came to the time for sale of the home we all realised the problem of getting another site or selling to someone who has planning permission to go elsewhere. In many cases that is virtually impossible. Having to give the site owner first option to buy at a much lower price of course represents a very big loss on the investment made by those concerned. We certainly welcome the abolition of the site owner's right of first refusal and the reduction of the commission to 10 per cent. I think many of us would like to have seen the commission on sale abolished altogether.
As I say, these are aspects which we welcome and they give more protection to the mobile home occupier, without being unduly unfair to the site owner. As the noble Lord has said, and as his noble friend Lord Bellwin said previously, it is a matter of keeping a balance between the interests of the two parties. I think that these amendments go some way towards doing that.
This is probably the last amendment on which I shall speak before the Bill goes on its way to the statute book. Therefore, on behalf of myself and my noble friends and, indeed, others with whom we worked in your Lordships' House, I should like to express our

595
thanks to the Government and others for their co-operation in getting the Bill through in this much more pleasing way due to their willingness to listen to the views of all concerned.
I also think that a tribute should be paid to the members of the National Consumer Council for their work in advising Members of all parties. As far back as 1977—six years ago—the National Consumer Council submitted a response to the Mobile Homes Review published by the Department of the Environment, and since has taken other initiatives, including liaising with the DoE and, indeed, with Members of all parties in an expert, practical and understanding way. Therefore, we owe them a debt. I believe that Parliament and, indeed, the Government have been helped by this expert advice, given impartially to all concerned. I believe that the Bill is better for their co-operation and the co-operation of others. With those few words I should like to welcome these amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I should like to associate myself with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has just said, and to say how grateful I am for the measures taken by the Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the amendments, which achieve the purpose which we had outlined when we discussed the matter in Committee as long ago as 6th December, when several of us ventured to suggest that there was no reason for the retention of the site owner's right of first refusal on the sale. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, told us that the amendment that we were proposing, which was designed to achieve exactly what we are now doing, was a very sweeping one. So we are very grateful for the late conversion of the Government to the point of view that we expressed. We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for underlining the fact that it was again your Lordships who put forward the concept on which the amendment is based, although it was finally implemented in another place.
I share the good wishes for the Bill which have been expressed on all sides. It seems to me that over the last 15 years there has been a minor revolution in the attitude of Parliament to the relationships between mobile home residents and site operators. I say that because at the beginning of that period the mobile home resident had no protection whatsoever, even against immediate eviction. That protection was first secured in the 1968 Act, and then, in the 1975 Act we went a little further in consideration of formal agreements between the residents and the site operators. Now we have implemented a far more thorough scheme, which gives protection to the residents without I believe in any way undermining the ability of the site operators to provide a good service, and one for which they can obtain a fair reward.
I believe that we are at the beginning of a new era in the relationships between site operators and mobile home residents. Obviously, everything is not going to be all sweetness and light, and we are still receiving from residents indications which perhaps suggest that in some respects we could have done a little more. However, with good will between the residents and the
596
owners, there is at last the possibility of ensuring that a harmonious system is developed, in which both groups will benefit from the legislation which Parliament is now passing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
"1A. The sums payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement and the times at which they are to be paid.".
28 Page 8, line 14, leave out "payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement" and insert "so payable".
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Asking your Lordships to agree to these two amendments, to which I have earlier spoken, gives me the opportunity to thank for their help all noble Lords who have taken part in the passage of the Bill, from the end of last year until this afternoon. I think it right that I should remind your Lordships of the particular interest of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because it was in 1968, when he was an honourable Member in another place, that he first moved a caravan sites Bill. There has been a long, continued, and very active interest by the noble Lord in this matter, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him, and indeed to other noble Lords, for their help in regard to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 belong to the earlier block to which I spoke.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
4.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Up-rating orders]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks had given notice of his intention to move the following amendment:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert ("except that, if in the second year of operation the application of this provision has not been sufficient to maintain the real value of benefits at the November 1982 level then an appropriate adjustment will be made in the percentage increase for the third year.").
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, this amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I did not give permission for my name to be added to the amendment, but my name, as well as the name of my noble friend Lady Jeger, appear on the Marshalled List. I can assure your Lordships that I do not know anything about this. Therefore, as there is no allowance in evidence, obviously the amendment is not being moved. I am not moving it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the matter. I understand that it was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who unfortunately is unable to be here, not to move the amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I simply express my appreciation to noble Lords opposite, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who have facilitated the rapid progress of the Bill through its concluding stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I think that we had better speak now, rather than on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I realise that the Bill has to go through because if it does not go through pensioners will not receive their increase in November, whether it be 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. In my candid opinion it is a pity that the Government did not accept the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to consider six-monthly reviews in future. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that that would mean 1,300 extra staff. Later, in reply to a point that I put to him, he said that he doubted whether any people who were unemployed were qualified to do the work. In passing I would remind the noble Lord that there are among the unemployed many university graduates, as well as grammar school sixth-formers with O- and A- level qualifications.
I do not intend to say much more, other than to add something which is rather more pleasant. I might not be speaking on the Dentists Bill, and the other Bill, and so I should now like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and to compliment him on the way in which he has handled the various Bills at their different stages. Of course, that does not mean to say that I agree with him, but on the other hand one should recognise efficiency when one sees it, and courtesy when one receives it, particularly in regard to the very prompt and detailed replies which many of us received. Therefore, having been a little unkind at the beginning, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord very sincerely. Should we he so unfortunate as to see returned a Government of whom he is a supporter, I wish the noble Lord well in any chance that he may receive.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should simply like to repeat, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill, that on this Bench we support the principle of the historic method of assessment, but we regret the timing of its introduction. We are not in agreement with the removal of over £200 million from the benefits system: nor were we able to agree with the Government that the biannual up-rating of pensions was an impossible task to contemplate. We very much hope that in the near future we shall be able to implement our own programme for pensioners, which will include up-rating twice a year. We hope that the electorate will see the merit of our proposals; but if, by some unfortunate mischance, that should not be the case, we shall keep a very watchful eye on the functioning of the system as proposed in the Bill.
Finally, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the way in which in this Parliament he has handled the social security Bills which have come before your
598
Lordships' House, and for the great lucidity of his exposition and his willingness to listen to comments, and in some cases even to accept minor amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord has in mind for himself if the Government are returned to power, but certainly I very much hope that we shall have the pleasure of dealing with him when considering these matters in the future.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the kind words addressed to myself.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill
5 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cockfield).
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, by convention and, indeed, in part by law, your Lordships' House is debarred from doing anything very much about the Finance Bill. But it has become the established convention over the years that discussion of the Finance Bill provides an opportunity for a review of the economic state and prospects of the nation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has made many notable contributions on this subject over the last four years when he and I have faced one another across the respective Dispatch Boxes. Yesterday, we had the opportunity of discussing the industrial state of the nation. I would not wish to weary your Lordships by going over again what was discussed in some detail then. Nevertheless, this occasion provides the House with the opportunity of considering the Government's performance in general over the last four years and of listening to the very learned response of the noble Lord.
The most notable feature in the taxation field to which the Finance Bill itself relates, but which I do not intend to discuss in detail, is the way the Government have discharged their election manifesto promises to reduce the level of taxation. I have been known sometimes to address the House in what I think have been well merited yet terse terms on this subject. It suffices for my purpose today to give the version of The Times concerning the manner in which the Government have discharged this mandate. According to The Times of 21st April:
"A cut of 7p in the basic rate of income tax would be needed to restore the real tax burden, adjusted for inflation, of a typical family to its level before this government took office, the Treasury has revealed. The figure applies to a married man with two children on average earnings. This takes into account the rise in income tax (less child benefit) and national insurance contributions between 1978ߝ79 and 1983ߝ84. The figures demonstrate that despite the tax cuts in the last Budget the Government has failed to fulfil its election pledge to reduce the tax burden at all income levels. Only the most affluent now pay less tax than they did four years ago".
Those are somewhat sedate terms in which to express the situation but the facts unpleasantly remain—that after all this time and after all the hardships through which the nation has passed, this is the position in which the Government are left at the

599
end of all their fiscal policies. It is no good the Government saying that the recent Budget changes, measured in real terms, leave the average worker 19p a week better off. It may be the case, on the basis of rises in wages suitably adjusted for inflation, that this is the ultimate take-home benefit. However, this contrasts with the facts revealed in The Times of 5th May that directors' average pay now reaches £40,825 per annum, and that the salaries of directors rose last year by 13.9 per cent. We are not talking of 13 per cent. on £4,000 or £5,000 a year. We are talking of 13 per cent. on a very much higher average. Despite all the protestations of the Government originally in relation to tax, the poor have got poorer and the rich have got richer.
The other feature of their policy that the Government proposed to carry out was dedicated to control of the money supply. I shall he merciful with the noble Lord on this point. I shall not go into the matter in too great a detail. Everyone now knows that the Government's assumptions on monetary policy—that reducing the money supply would automatically have beneficial consequences on inflation—have turned out to be complete nonsense. In fact, had the Government's own assumptions that there was a two-year time lag between rises and falls in money supply and their effect on inflation been realised the inflation rate now would be running at well over 20 per cent. The arguments adduced at the time by the noble Lord supported by one noble Lord from the Cross-Benches, Lord Harris of High Cross—I do not see the noble Lord with us today—have been completely disproved.
The other policies that the Government have carried out have had disastrous effects. The noble Lord knows full well by now that the rise in interest rates upon which the Government embarked, together with the coming of North Sea oil, succeeded in raising the exchange rate. At one time, this was regarded by the Government as a very desirable objective. The House will recall the Prime Minister's pride when the exchange rate reached 2·40 dollars to the pound. One recalls how proud she was that the pound could look the dollar in the face. But, of course, the consequences for British industry were disastrous. The exchange rate was a grave impediment to our exporters whose competitive position was made very hard indeed.
At the same time, imports into this country were facilitated. Although this had the desired effect, which I have no doubt the noble Lord had in mind, of bringing down the rate of inflation, it also devastated wide sections of British industry. Owing to the artificially low price of imported manufactures, hundreds upon hundreds of British firms were driven out of business. So that has been the other result.
The marginal result was that the City of London benefited very much by these policies. Indeed, it has been merrily operating not so much for the provision of funds for new investment in British industry but more particularly for a whole series of takeovers of existing enterprises based upon anticipated yields that have come into perspective from time to time.
Therefore, while wide sections of the British public have suffered, while unemployment has risen to well over 4 million—after having made allowances for the figures that have disappeared from the register, which have already been dealt with—we have now reached
600
the stage where one in every seven of the population is on supplementary benefit. That is a rather formidable consequence of the policies that have been carried out. As the Financial Times was constrained to put it in its editorial on Tuesday, 10th May:
"On the face of it, the economic record of her Government looks bad; the rise in unemployment, especially young unemployed, the decline in output and the absence of growth. Only the performance in reducing inflation is outstandingly good. The task in the election campaign is to demonstrate that this will lead to recovery".
It goes on to say:
"No Government deserves a second term in office if it cannot reasonably promise to bring unemployment down".
In my view that is a very reasonable statement.
But what are the prospects? One of the most extraordinary occurrences over the past few weeks has been the endeavour to suppress the report of the National Economic Development Council which was referred to in The Times of 12th April. The reason for that is quite clear. The particularly survey, which incidentally had been compiled from 40 National Economic Development Office sector committee assessments of the prospects to the end of the decade, came to the conclusion, not aided by any party political considerations, that no increase in jobs was in prospect for the rest of the decade. Perhaps that is the reason why the election is being called now. Perhaps if the Government had neglected to go to the country for much longer, developments later on in the year would have borne out the position as stated by NEDO. We know quite well that the Director General of the CBI, whose close association with and affection for the Conservative Party was well revealed at a recent dinner, seems to be more optimistic. There has been optimism before but the result has never materialised anywhere above the horizon.
The fact of the matter is that, whatever they may say in the forthcoming election campaign, the Government have no policies to offer the country which can demonstrate with any kind of reasonable expectation, with any kind of reasonable regard for the truth, that they are going to reduce unemployment measureably within the next decade, or certainly within the life time of any future Government with which a misguided electorate might entrust them. If the noble Lord has any observations to offer to the contrary in his reply, if he can hold out any prospect which is based upon reasonable expectations, he has a perfect opportunity to do so. However, it will require more than the continuation of grinding reference to some of the homilies with which we have been regaled over the past four years, to reassure the public that the Government have any real plans that enable this very considerable blot on the whole of the social and economic landscape of the United Kingdom to be reduced, let alone obliterated.
In more recent months the Government have drummed into our heads, and are continuing to do so, that there are no prospects of what they describe as "real jobs" unless the country become more competitive. We on these Benches are all for British industry' and British commerce becoming more competitive. We are all for industry becoming more efficient. These are defects in British industry at all levels, not least, I am bound to say, at management levels.

601
However, I want to deal with the last plank upon which the Government are basing their policies: the necessity for the United Kingdom to become more and more competitive. I am omitting from the argument for the moment the effect that the exchange rate of the pound against other currencies has had upon the competitiveness of British industry, although of course it is quite considerable. The noble Lord knows quite well that when the pound was at its peak in New York, it made British products uncompetitive to the tune of about 50 per cent.—an almost impossible situation.
I do not want to discuss competition in a vacuum or even by reference to numerous statistics, because statistics can be manipulated a number of ways according to the bent of the person who is offering them, and they are very often presented outside the context for which they were originally intended. In previous debates I have drawn the attention of the House to various examples. Indeed, one can only deal with these matters by supplying concrete examples that have been the subject of detailed and independent research. I demonstrated some months ago as regards Wales an example where British workers, supplied with identical equipment and working under similar conditions, were just as productive as foreign nationals. I also demonstrated that the wage rates applicable in the United Kingdom and, to some extent, applicable throughout Europe sometimes at higher levels, were not in fact responsible for the degree of uncompetitiveness that arose. The figures that I gave and the sources that I quoted have at no time been disputed by any noble Lord and, indeed, have not been disputed by the Government. Therefore, the question of competition becomes of some importance.
The House will recall that more recently, on 7th April last, we found out the Government's attitude towards competition by foreign countries, even by countries outside those within what is called "the Western sphere of influence"—in other words, the OECD countries. Your Lordships will recall that I instanced the case of the British Shipbuilders' quote for a cable ship which, through a somewhat mysterious route involving a company called International Transport Management or rather ITM (Offshore) Limited, (who for some obscure reason had not filed their accounts for a couple of years) went to a Korean company by the name of Hyundai, and I never got any response to that.
One thing that was important was that the Prime Minister was involved in making the decision that British Shipbuilders, or the subsidiary of British Shipbuilders, should not get the contract. Your Lordships will recall that it was quite proved—and my figures were nowhere challenged, though there has been abundant opportunity to do so—that the competition we were getting from South Korea was largely based on the fact that the wage rates there were some 23 per cent. of those applicable in Europe, and there were other factors involved as well. These matters were never satisfactorily answered.
The expressed attitude of the Government is that not only does United Kingdom industry have to compete with the other industrial countries of the West in the OECD countries, including Japan and the
602
United States, it also has to compete, and the Government are determined that it shall compete, with countries such as South Korea which are among the newly-industrialised countries, and I believe which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had the opportunity of visiting recently. He will undoubtedly at some time, whether on these Benches or the other Benches, according to how the arithmetic goes, give us some account of his visit there.
However, I have some fresh news to tell the House. Not only did this contract go to this South Korean company, Hyundai, on the basis of what on all accounts was completely unfair competition, from which it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to protect British manufacturers in exactly the same way as the United States has not the slightest hesitation, where it gets instances of this kind, of protecting its own, but it also went to a company—and I speak not under parliamentary privilege but in reading the Financial Times of 24th April last from page 9 of the Saudi Arabian supplement—which was banned for two years for bribery in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, it can only recently have emerged from the status of suspension. Therefore, not only do we willingly condone the passage of contracts to countries which trade unfairly, but we also allow them to go to companies which have been banned in other countries for bribery.
The facts about Hyundai's suspension for bribery must have been known to our Foreign Office representatives in Riyadh. If they did not know, then they were not doing their job properly. If they were known by the Foreign Office, as they should have been since the Saudi-Korean matter had been raised at that time, they should have been transmitted to the Prime Minister's office. But the position is that not only are Her Majesty's Government prepared to tolerate unfair competition on the basis of wages costs which are enforced by a semi-military Government whose trade unions function in very much the same way as those to which the Government and Opposition object in Poland, but from companies which have a history of bribery.
It would be interesting to hear the reply of Her Majesty's Government on that, and the extent to which they are willing in future to allow these things to happen. The matter is more apposite because there is a company in the East Docklands area called Blackwall Engineering Limited which recently tendered to the Central Electricity Generating Board—the CEGB again—for some ship repairs in the comparatively small sum of £77,000. It was told by the CEGB that its price was very competitive, but we now learn that this contract also has gone to this mysterious company, ITM, and we wonder whether this has also gone to Korea.
These are serious matters. It is far better to raise them, as I have done today, in the particular than to talk in generality about them. The fact of the matter is that the Government are quite prepared for this competition to continue. All they are really seeking to do, if they can, is to depress British wage levels, and endure further British unemployment if they cannot depress their wage levels to those subsisting in South Korea. I hope that the Government are going to answer that.

603
I shall close shortly, and I must apologise for keeping the House, but these matters are of some importance and they deserve to be aired in Parliament. The Government came to office on the basis of uniting the nation. They have done nothing of the kind. All they have done is to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. These are long days from the days when we were last in crisis in World War II, when there was a greater measure of fairness and justice among all our population. The fact that there was a greater measure of fairness and justice produced that purpose which took us through the war itself. The Government's task, in the face of the depression largely induced by them, was at least to unify the nation by a greater measure of fairness and justice. This they have not done. For this, they ought to be condemned.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out in 30 seconds that he appears to accuse the Government of having a high pound and strong currency during the majority of the time this Government have been in power, and therefore harming our export trade and causing unemployment. But I remember when the pound was at five dollars to the pound before the war, and we had a thriving export trade. I was always taught that if a country can only export because it has a weak currency, that country is decadent.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. One thing he will remember is that by the division of labour which took place during the war itself we ourselves bore the great brunt of the damage inflicted on us by the enemy. The United States suffered no damage to its industries; indeed, many of them were enhanced by the war effort itself. So far as we are concerned we, at 1945 prices (and they are very much higher today) sustained damage of about £7,158 million. We started off right from the bottom, and it is to the great credit of post-war Governments that progressively we enhanced our position from that situation.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I propose to take two minutes to raise one point, a personal point I fear, which springs from a parliamentary Question asked on 26th April. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on that occasion went to some trouble to give details of the improvement since 1979 in the position of a man earning £45,000 a year. He made the claim, quite properly, that this was due to the Government's taxation policy. He also stated that the position of an unemployed man had improved since 1979.
I asked the Minister to make it clear whether the position of the unemployed man had improved because of an enlightened tax policy, or whether it was not due to the higher benefits from a contributory pension scheme. The noble Lord, rather surprisingly, is reported as saying that there seemed some innuendo in my question, and he proposed to ignore it. Several noble Lords, not all on these Benches I might add, have expressed surprise at the use of that rather scurvy term "innuendo". My admiration for the Government's financial policy does not exceed that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. But my
604
affection for the noble Lord himself is a factor of parliamentary life. I therefore give him this opportunity to withdraw an expression which was not in keeping with the spirit of my supplementary question. After all, why resort to innuendo when the facts speak so clearly?
When a choice has to be made this Government invariably have helped the wealthier as opposed to the poorer people. To some extent, the Finance Bill, which we are ostensibly considering, has been expurgated for reasons of expediency and it does not therefore go as far as it would have gone. Nevertheless, it still remains a fact that the Government's taxation policy has been retrogressive. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that when that criticism is made it is fairly made and cannot be dismissed as an innuendo.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it was Richard Brinsley Sheridan who said:
"The right honourable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests and to his imagination for his facts".
I have never accused the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of making a jest, but when it comes to his facts his imagination is, at times, a little awry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, started by saying that the convention had grown up over the years that the Finance Bill should be the occasion for a broad-ranging debate on the economy. He certainly ranged broadly enough. I would, however, refer him to a speech made by his noble friend the Lord McCluskey on 4th April 1979—the Labour Government had then fallen by vote of another place. As a result, your Lordships were considering, as they are on this occasion, a Finance Bill which had been agreed between the parties for rapid implementation. Lord McCluskey said this:
"My Lords, I understand that I have a right of reply, although I am astonished to find that I am called upon to exercise it, as I had understood that the proceedings in relation to this Bill would, as normally, be formal".—[Official Report, 4/4/1979; col. 1913.]
I hope the noble Lord will have the opportunity of refreshing his memory during the Recess which lies ahead.
I propose to concentrate on the Finance Bill, but before I do so I should reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. The last thing in the world I should want to do would be either to cast any reflection on him or to cause him any distress. I hope he will understand in what I am saying that that is very much in my mind. The words used by the noble Lord were as follows:
"I wonder if the noble Lord could make it absolutely clear, so that we may follow these matters more fairly".—[Official Report, 26/4/83; col. 802.]
The implication of the words "more fairly" was that what I was saying was unfair. It was in that sense that I understood the noble Lord to be making his point.
The word "innuendo" is a legal term and in relation to the use of the word "fairly" in the context in which it was used by the noble Lord, I felt it was correct to describe that as an innuendo. But I hasten to assure the noble Lord that there was no intention whatever on my part of casting any reflection upon him. I hope that he will accept that explanation in this spirit.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, of course I accept that, but if I ask for something to be considered fairly I mean

605
that I want it to be considered fairly and that there is absolutely no question ever of there being some underlying innuendo in that. I accept what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not propose to expand on what I have said which I believe answers the point that the noble Lord has now made. I wish to repeat that the last thing in my mind was to cast any aspersion or to cause the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, any distress in this matter.
I shall now return to the Finance Bill. This is not the Bill as it was introduced by the Government. It is the price of their co-operation in the passage of legislation essential to the proper administration of the country. The Opposition have forced amendments to a number of important clauses. These comprise: first, Clause 12, where the effect of the amendment forced by the Opposition will be to hold the thresholds at which people begin to pay the higher rates of tax and the investment income surcharge at the 1982ߝ83 levels, rather than to increase them by 14 per cent., as the Government had proposed.
Secondly, Clause 15 is the clause on small companies' corporation tax, where the effect of the amendment forced by the Opposition is to leave the profit limits for the small companies' rate of corporation tax at their existing levels, rather than to increase them substantially as the Government had proposed.
Thirdly, Clause 18: the effect of the amendment imposed by the Opposition is to maintain the mortgage interest relief limit for 1983ߝ84 at £25,000 rather than to increase it to £30,000, as the Government had proposed. The Opposition apparently claim—although the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, barely addressed himself to the Bill—that their actions on the Bill reflect some high principle. The reality is that the Opposition's actions are both mean-minded and, were they to have any lasting effect, disadvantageous to many groups in the country.
The amendement to the income tax clause—that is Clause 12—forced by the Opposition will mean that some 300,000 people will be brought into the higher rate charge of tax and nearly 1 million people in all will pay more tax. The people who are affected are for the most part middle managers, professional people and people making their way in business—the very people who are essential to ensuring growth and the creation of wealth. But the truth is much worse than that. Every single one of the 25 million or so people paying income tax is now under threat by the Opposition.
Last time the Labour Government increased the rate of tax from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. What we are now seeing is the thin end of a very nasty wedge. Let there be no mistake about this. The Labour Party stands for higher taxation for everybody. The sheep's clothing has now slipped, and we see the very nasty wolf underneath.
We have promised, immediately we are returned to power, that we will reinstate the reliefs and allowances that the Opposition have deleted. Were the Opposition to win, every one of the million people liable to higher rate tax will be fined by the Labour Government as they claw back the relief already given. The same
606
politics of envy are evident in the Opposition's attempts to impose a lower limit for mortgage interest relief—a limit of £25,000 rather than the £30,000 that the Government had proposed. This is a blow struck not only at the householders immediately affected but, in the long run, at everyone who wishes to buy his own home. The threat is there. The limit of £25,000 was originally set in 1974. It has been heavily eroded. The Labour Party simply do not want people to own their own homes, and they are determined to penalise those who do so.
All I would say in conclusion is this. The Bill itself, as originally presented, typified the Government's policies to improve the environment in which enterprise and wealth creation operate, creating the foundations for sustained recovery of output and employment. I therefore commend the Bill to the House, even truncated as it is, with a promise that in the not too distant future I shall be commending to your Lordships a second Finance Bill which will consign the Opposition's actions to the discard of fiscal history.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May): Bill read a third time.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cockfield.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise simply to correct the noble Lord on the question of the convention governing debates of this kind and to say that the noble Lord would have known quite well, if he had looked at the list of speakers—and he knows quite well through the usual channels—exactly what the intention of this debate was going to be. He knows quite well that on an occasion such as this—and it has happened over the last two or three years—it is quite the normal thing for the economic state of the country to be discussed. I say that, through the usual channels, he was well aware that I was going to take this line today.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I was well aware that the noble Lord was going to take the line that he has taken, and for that notice I am grateful. But I was pointing out to him, and I point out to him again, that the line that he has taken is contrary to the established practice on an occasion such as this, as indeed is illustrated by the speech of his noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey on a similar occasion.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that if he goes further back in his researches he will find the the practice then was always to have a debate on the Finance Bill?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are in exceptional circumstances. Where we are dealing with normal circumstances I accept what the noble Lord says, but these circumstances are exceptional.
On Question, Bill passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Speaker's Certificate that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Importation of Milk Bill
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Importation of Milk Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a necessary consequence of a judgment of the European Court which found the United Kingdom's domestic regulations, which applied to ultraheat-treated milk, to be contrary to Community law. The judgment was delivered on 8th February of this year, and it is essential to take steps to comply with it as soon as possible if we are to avoid being taken back to the court under Article 171 of the Treaty of Rome.
Arrangements were therefore made to introduce this brief enabling Bill, and it was given its First Reading in another place on 28th April. It was expected to receive its Second Reading there today. These plans were, of course, overtaken by Monday's announcement, and the Government had to decide whether to abandon the Bill or to press ahead with it. The Government concluded that the delay which would have been created by abandoning the Bill would have increased the risk of further legal action which might have obliged us to admit imports without any checks at all. We have therefore sought Parliament's agreement to expedite the passage of the Bill with what is almost, but not total, unprecedented alacrity in endeavouring to secure the passage of all its stages, except the First Reading, today.
Inevitably, this means that there will not be the usual opportunity for detailed scrutiny in Committee, which I greatly regret. I know that there are certain bodies which have an interest in the subject which are understandably unhappy about this. On that particular issue, I would merely make two points. First, since the judgment the Ministry of Agriculture has been in very close touch with such bodies as the National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation, which all have an interest in the matter. These contacts will of course continue. Secondly, although the Bill does not provide specifically for consultations, I can assure your Lordships that there will of course be consultations. It will clearly be necessary to take account of the views of interested parties before any regulations are made; and there will be the usual full discussion.
The Bill allows agriculture Ministers to make regulations to govern the importation of milk and the use of milk once it has been imported. The guts of the Bill (if I may so put it) is in Clause 1. It is widely drafted, but its essential purpose is to allow Ministers to establish a comprehensive import régime which the court's judgment recognises we may apply. In particular, it provides that regulations may deal with ports of entry, with certification of imports and with the inspection and testing of imported milk. It also provides for the regulations to adjust our domestic legislation, which was found incompatible with
608
Community law, in order to allow the sale of imported milk and to make various other provisions in order to reflect the fact that imports are now allowed.
I have deliberately concentrated on Clause 1 of the Bill because this contains all the essential provisions. Clause 2 indicates that the regulations in question are to be made by Statutory Instrument, or statutory rule in Northern Ireland, and they are subject to negative resolution. Clause 2 also defines the various terms which are used in the Bill, and it makes it clear that regulations may deal, not only with milk and cream but also with various milk-based products, such as flavoured milk drinks. Clause 3 simply gives the Short Title of the Bill and indicates that it extends to Northern Ireland.
I thought—and I hope that I have judged the House rightly—that your Lordships would not wish for a long debate about the problems of milk, which are well known. I have therefore deliberately kept my remarks briefer than normal courtesy would suggest in order to explain that this Bill is really an enabling Bill to keep the United Kingdom in line with the European Court's judgment.
Perhaps I could remind the House of the Statement which my right honourable friend made on 9th February and which I repeated in your Lordships' House. We said then that the Government would comply with the judgment and would provide for the import of ultra heat-treated milk from other member states, subject to its satisfying the same health and hygiene requirements on which, in the interest of public health, we insist for the production and processing of our own milk. This Bill is in full accord with that Statement, which received a wide measure of support, and I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers).
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, with your leave—because my name does not appear on the list—I should like to make a small intervention. I will not detain your Lordships long; but as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, under other circumstances there would have been considerable debate on this Bill because it affects an important industry in this country. It requires a mere 10 per cent. switch in trade from doorstep deliveries to supermarket deliveries of UHT milk to bring about a cessation of doorstep deliveries in many places. I am sure your Lordships are well aware that quite apart from the financial consequences to the dairies in this country, the social consequences of losing our doorstep deliveries are very great indeed because in many areas of the country and in many areas of population, notably the old, the doorstep delivery is their one daily link with the world outside.
Not only does the Labour Party wish that people should own their own homes; it also wishes them to have their milk delivered to the doorstep. I hope that whatever these regulations may be—and I am relieved to hear they will be discussed in full with the trade—whatever they may be I hope the Government will see that this can continue.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we have had a lot of bandying across the Dispatch Box about the conventions of what was what, and I assume there is no convention about a Bill on UHT milk. I think that the Bill has been published in a hurry, as the noble Earl the Minister has said. The noble Earl said there had been discussion with the various bodies but not sufficient time to have their opinions, and that must be right. We have had a note from the National Farmers' Union but not from any of the other bodies concerned. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that his contacts will continue in due course.
I think the Bill is necessary not only to protect consumers, who naturally would want to think that any milk from any other country was treated, packed and delivered in as good a way as we do it in this country, but it must also protect the producers who in this country are under very strict production and hygiene controls in our dairies. I have been a dairyman for many years and I know that it is quite an expensive business putting in the equipment today and engaging and paying the men to do the job properly, to produce clean milk from the farms. So this should apply to any milk coming from abroad.
In the other place when the Bill was going through yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary emphasised that the quality of milk before treatment must be the same as ours. She emphasised this twice very sharply indeed. I think we have no regulations yet as to how this is to be done, and I wonder whether the noble Earl can enlighten us as to how one is to police production of milk from dairies from other countries if what has been emphasised in another place and what I have just said is to take place.
On page 2, paragraph (4)(a), there is the phrase, "as to the quality of the milk". That refers to the quality before it goes into the carton, before it is processed in any way. I would be interested to know how this can possibly be done. Quite frankly I think it is necessary to do that to protect producers in this country.
A few years ago I was in France with a party. I became bored with the holiday spirit so I asked to see a dairy in the Maritime Alps. They sent me to a big outfit which had about 120 to 150 cows taken up for summer milking. They were milked in a shed by hand. The dung from the cows was scraped out over the generations and I am not exaggerating when I say that it was flowing down the hill like the lava from Etna is flowing at the moment. That was all that happened to it. There were dogs knocking about lifting their legs at the milk cans. The water supply was non-existent so far as I could see. They boiled stream water in the dirtiest copper I have ever seen. The milk was made into cheese on the spot, and I would hate to think that that sort of milk was going to be processed. Of course you can use ultra heat treatment and make milk hygienic, but I would hate to consume it when produced under the conditions that I saw. I may add that for the next few nights I noticed that no one took cheese after dinner. I think that checking of this milk is most essential because after all ultra heat treatment hides a lot.
I appreciate the situation of not being able to discuss or amend the Bill, but if I wanted to put down an
610
amendment on line 27, page 2, it would be to the effect that I do not not know why we need to put in the phrase, "consider necessary or expedient". Personally, I do not like the word "expedient". I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary to discover the actual meaning, which is, "Politic rather than just". This might apply to the Government—"politic rather than just"—but to put in the word "expedient" after "consider it necessary" seems to be unnecessary.
So far as I can see, the main point from discussing this with processors in this country is that we can easily have competition with people producing UHT milk on the Continent if we can produce at the same price, and there is no reason why we should not do this. To process UHT milk and put it in a carton—it has to have a special carton—costs about 5½p a pint against 4p for ordinary pasteurised milk, also in a carton. That milk costs a lot to transport. I made inquiries as to whether we could not transport liquid milk to areas where children are starving, and it is an expensive business. It cannot be cheap to get it to this country, and we should remember that milk is 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. water. We should be able to compete and I should like to think we can because, as my noble friend behind me said, anything that would harm the doorstep delivery in this country would be terrible. If we can compete and we can deliver it along with pasteurised milk on the doorstep then we do not have a lot to fear. But whenever I discuss doorstep delivery with people, they are horrified that they might lose it. It has stood the test of time and I think we should do everything to see that doorstep deliveries continue. I think the figure that my noble friend quoted, even at 10 per cent. reduction, would put out of business a lot of milk rounds. This is something we should think carefully about.
My Lords, with the reservation that the Bill is a hurried one, and I hope we shall be able to debate the regulations because they will be very complicated indeed, whichever Government is there to do it, we are prepared in the meantime to let it go through.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I know that my name is not on the list of speakers but I hope I may be permitted to intervene briefly. I should like to say that while I welcome this Bill there are one or two questions I should like to ask in connection with it. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has put the point of view of the producers. I want to stress very much the standpoint of the consumers in the regulations in relation to the Bill.
If this milk is cheap it is something which a great many people would welcome. We are told continually that it is not nice. If it is not nice and if people think that, they will not buy it. But if they want to buy it and it is cheaper than the existing milk, then it is highly desirable that they should be able to do so.
I notice that the Bill says that satisfaction must be given with regard to quality. I should like to ask the Minister one question about quality. Obviously, we must have protection against milk which is not healthy; but there are qualities of milk, and a lower quality of milk which is cheaper is what some people want. When we talk of quality, are we simply saying that we will exclude milk which is not hygienic? That, of course, must be right. Are we saying that we are

611
going to discriminate against milk which, although perfectly hygienic, is not of such good quality as some of the milk produced here but which nevertheless is fit for human consumption? Some people may very much prefer to have a larger quantity of such milk than a small quantity, or even none at all, of the better-quality milk? May we take it that this Bill, as it comes before us, fully conforms—I am sure it does but I should like to emphasise the point—with all the requirements of the EEC and indeed of GATT, and that there is no more creeping protectionism behind this Bill to add to all the creeping protectionism we are getting from so many quarters at the present time?
Having said that, like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, we on these Benches will be very interested to see the regulations. We welcome the Bill guardedly and we want to be sure that the consumer interest is not overshadowed by the producer interest in discussion of this measure.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, as one who introduced the original national milk scheme, which was passed without a Division in another place at the height of the Battle of Britain. I would only ask the Minister whether he can give us an assurance that this Bill will not involve any serious interruption in the supply of cheap milk for the children of this country.
6.2 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for having given the Bill a speedy recognition. If I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, first, I would assure him that this Bill does not in any way affect the supply of school milk for children. Its sole purpose—and here I am answering the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—is to protect the consumer from having milk of an inferiror quality. I take her point very readily that there are questions of quality of production and of quality of content. The regulations to be introduced will refer to the quality of production because what we have in our country at the moment, under which our milk has always been sold, are very strict regulations as to the manner in which the milk is produced, the premises on which they are produced and the conditions in which that milk is bottled or pasteurised.
Our wish is to see that any milk which comes into this country which the European Court's judgment says should be allowed is produced to the same standards of production and processing. The court's judgment recognises our right to do that, and the purpose of the Bill is to accede to the court's judgment in allowing to come in milk which will satisfy the consumer and to allow us, as a country, to protect the quality of the milk which our citizens will consume.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I should have apologised when I spoke earlier because I was not here when he made his opening speech. I am afraid I was caught up in the election campaign.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. She need not worry at all. I am sure that her involvement in the election campaign, even if it might be a trifle premature, is
612
perhaps even more important than her observations on the Bill, although they are important too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was entirely right to express concern about the doorstep delivery. For some extraordinary reason there have been one or two sparks flying across the Chamber this aftrernoon, but I am delighted to find that the Opposition and the Government are in total harmony over this matter. We want to see the doorstep delivery retained. My right honourable friend has gone out of his way, time and time again, since he has been Minister of Agriculture, to say that this is a vital part because it provides, among other things, a social service. It enables people to know what is going on, especially in connection with households with elderly folk. I do not think the noble Baroness need worry unduly because at the moment only about 1 per cent. of the milk is UHT milk, and it is only when the milk supply in the supermarkets gets to unprecedently large proportions that people may prefer to go to the supermarkets rather than have their milk delivered on the doorstep. In the end, it is up to the housewives to decide; and the value of the doorstep milk and its quality is. I would suggest, infinitely better than the UHT milk, which is of a different calibre altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked how we would police the production of milk. I would tell him that at present consultations are going on in this country and in Europe on precisely that type of point. We want to be able to satisfy ourselves that the milk is produced in the right kinds of conditions, and I cannot believe that the conditions he described would be remotely acceptable to our consumers. Incidentally, Mr. Dalsager himself was so keen to find out about the doorstep delivery of milk that he accompanied a delivery man on one occasion in this country to find out how it is done.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked why the word "expedient" was in the Bill, as well as "necessary". He said he did not think it was necessary. Without going into undue semantics, I would suggest that something may be necessary and on another occasion it may be expedient or desirable but may not be necessary. It is for that reason that this modest word was put in; but I do not think it really affects the substance of the Bill
I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that he looked forward to debating the regulations. I am sure he does and I would not wish to dishearten him, but I would remind him that they are subject to negative resolution and he would be able to debate them if he wishes to pray against them.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [90] as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from "the" to end of line 12 on page 2 and insert "words 'eighteen members' there shall be substituted the words 'the President and twenty-nine other members'.
(2A) For paragraph 2(2) there shall be substituted—
'(2A of the said twenty-nine members of the Council—

(a) eighteen shall be elected by registered dentists from among themselves;

(b) four shall be the persons who are for the time being the chief dental officers of each of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and the chief dental officer to the Secretary of State for Scotland;

(c) six, who shall not be registered dentists and of whom three shall be chosen for England and one for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, shall be nominated by Her Majesty on the advice of Her Privy Council;

(d) one shall be elected in accordance with paragraph 14(9) of Part II of this Schedule;

and of the remaining members, all of whom shall be registered dentists, the University of London (so long as it is a dental authority) shall nominate two, and every other authority which is for the time being a dental authority shall nominate one.'."
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
"(4A) In paragraph 3(3) (under which, of the eleven elected members, seven are to be elected in England, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands), for the words 'eleven' and 'seven' there shall be substituted the words 'eighteen' and 'fourteen' respectively.
(4B) For paragraph 5 there shall be substituted—
'5.—(1) The General Council shall elect a registered dentist as President from among the persons who are for the time being members of the Council.
(2) If the President when he takes office is an elected or nominated member of the Council he shall thereupon cease to be such a member, and the Council shall accordingly take the appropriate steps to fill the vacancy so created.
(3) The period for which the President shall hold office shall be the period for which a nominated member of the Council taking office at the same time as the President would hold office.'."
3 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 en bloc. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22 to 27 inclusive, 29, 31 to 33 inclusive and 35 to 45. I must mention at the outset that there are several printing errors in the list of Commons amendments before your Lordships today. In particular, I would refer to: page 5, Amendment No. 16, fifth line of subsection (3) of the new clause,
614
after "subsection", a line has been missed out which should read "a person may be represented before the Committee by counsel or a solicitor"; page 7, Amendment No. 22, subsection (4) of the new clause, third line, "and appointment" should read "an appointment"; page 8, Amendment No. 28, penultimate line of paragraph (1) of the new clause "a fine or not exceeding" should read "a fine not exceeding": and, finally, on page 9, Amendment No. 38, the reference to "Page 17" should be to "Page 19". There are also a number of small typographical errors which, perhaps, do not need to be specifically corrected and with which I do not need to bother your Lordships in considering the amendments.
It may be helpful if I briefly summarise the purpose of the Commons Amendments which we are considering. The first group, whose numbers I have given to your Lordships, relates to the constitution of the General Dental Council and of its subordinate committees. Three significant changes are proposed to the composition of the Council itself. In lieu of the three dentists currently nominated by Her Majesty, it is proposed to provide five ex-officio members; namely the president of the GDC and the four chief dental officers of the United Kingdom health departments. This, in practice, will allow the chief dental officers for Wales and Northern Ireland to sit on the GDC for the first time. Lay membership on the council will be increased from three to six, to preserve the proportions in the 1957 Act against the overall increase in the size of the council proposed by the Bill. In addition, an elected dental auxiliary will be given a place on the council in recognition of the GDC's responsibilities for dental therapists and dental hygienists.
Proposals for the subordinate committees include increasing the number of elected dental auxiliaries on the Dental Auxiliaries Committee from three to six, setting an upper limit of 10 on the number of council members (other than the president) of that sub-committee, and renaming the Disciplinary Committee as the Professional Conduct Committee in keeping with the nomenclature of its GMC counterpart. The Government believe that all these proposals will assist the GDC in carrying out its duties and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have no wish at this eleventh hour to resist these amendments or, indeed, any of the subsequent amendments to this Bill. They seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. I rise merely to say that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at earlier stages of our consideration of this Bill, reminded your Lordships' House that we have a Dentists Bill approximately every 30 years. We had one in 1921; I think we had one in 1951 and we have another now. In those circumstances, I merely rise to say that it seems to me faintly regrettable, that having dealt with this 30 years' period Dentists Bill, we have had to deal with its final stages in somewhat indecent haste, I make no criticism of anybody for that. I merely say that perhaps we might have had an opportunity to consider some of these matters in a little more detail than we can now do. Perhaps it will be helpful if I indicate, as one who

615
was interested in this Bill at the earlier stages, that I have no objection to the amendments which are now tabled.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:—
"Notification of reasons for refusal of application for registration etc.
4 Where the registrar refuses—

(a) an application for registration in the dentists register under section 2, 2A or 12 of the principal Act.

(b) an application for a direction to be given under section 13 of that Act, or

(c) an application to be restored to the register under section 18(2) or 21(4) of that Act,

he shall notify the applicant of his reasons for refusing the application; and any such notification may be sent by post.".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4 is the first of the second group of amendments that I seek to commend to your Lordships, which is minor in character. Their main effect is to lay new requirements on the keeping of the dentists register and on the registrar. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 9, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
6 After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause:—
"Constitution of Education Committee.
In paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (Education Committee to consist of the President and eight other members of the Council who are registered dentists and certain nominated members) before the word 'eight' there shall be inserted the words 'at least'.".
7 Clause 11, page 6, line 2, after "Act", insert "(prescription of titles which may be used by practitioners in special and distinctive branches of dentistry)"
8 Clause 11, page 6, line 4, leave out from "After" to "there" in line 5 and insert "the said section 15(3)".
9 Clause 11, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
"(3B) The Council shall cause a correct copy of any list for the time being kept by them in pursuance of subsection (3A) of this section to be appended to any copy of the dentists register printed, published and sold in accordance with section 20 of this Act."
10 Before Clause 13, insert the following new Clause:—
"Professional Conduct Committee.
.—(1) The Disciplinary Committee constituted under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act shall be known instead as the Professional Conduct Committee.
(2) Accordingly in any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of subsection (1) above for any reference to the Disciplinary Committee there shall be substituted a reference to the Professional Conduct Committee.
(3) In the said paragraph 12—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (Committee to consist of the President and ten other members of the Council of whom at least four must be elected members) for the word 'four' there shall be substituted the word 'five'; and

(b) for sub-paragraph (5) there shall be substituted—

'(5) The quorum for a meeting of the Professional Conduct Committee shall be seven, of whom at least two shall be elected members of the Council and at least one shall be neither an elected member of the Council nor a registered dentist.'.".
11 Clause 13, page 6, line 41, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
12 Clause 13, page 7, line 17, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 5 to 12.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Page 7, line 29, leave out from "when" to end of line 32 and insert "the period for bringing an appeal against the said determination under section 29 of this Act expires or, if such an appeal is brought, the appeal is determined or withdrawn or is struck out for want of prosecution.".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. This is the first of the third group of amendments which I am seeking to commend to your Lordships. The group is this amendment, No. 13, and Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive, 20, 21, 30 and 34. This group relates to disciplinary matters and of these the most important is No. 16 which contains a new power to enable the GDC to suspend a dentist prior to a full hearing by the Professional Conduct Committee where this is considered necessary to protect the public. The Government are convinced, in the light of a recent case to which we referred in earlier debates on this Bill, that such a power is needed, although we do, of course, expect that it will need to be used only rarely. The remaining amendments in this group are essentially clarificatory or consequential. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Page 7, line 33, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
15 Page 8, line 23, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
16 After Clause 13 insert the following new Clause—
"Interim suspension orders.
—(1) Where the Preliminary Proceedings Committee ('the Committee')—

(a) decide that the case of a person who is alleged to have been convicted as mentioned in section 25(1) of the principal Act (grounds for erasure or suspension), or to have been guilty of any such misconduct as is there mentioned, ought to be referred to the Professional Conduct Committee under section 26 of that Act (disciplinary cases), and

(b) are satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public to make an order under this section in respect of that person,

they may order that his registration in the register shall be suspended in accordance with the following provisions of this section pending the determination of his case by the Professional Conduct Committee.
(2) The Committee may make any such order notwithstanding—

(a) in the case of a person alleged to have been convicted as aforesaid, that any proceedings by way of appeal are pending in respect of the conviction in question; or

(b) in the case of a person alleged to have been guilty of any such misconduct as aforesaid, that any criminal charge has been, or might be, brought in respect of the alleged misconduct.

(3) No order shall be made under this section in respect of a person unless he has been afforded an opportunity of appearing before the Committee and of being heard on the

617
question whether such an order should be made in his case; and for the purposes of this subsection, a person may be represented before the Committee by counsel or a solicitor or (if rules under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act so provide and he so elects) by a person of such other description as may be specified in the rules.
(4) Where the Committee make an order under this section the registrar shall forthwith serve on the person to whom it applies a notification of the order and of his right to make an application for the termination of the order under subsection (8) below; and the registration of that person in the register shall be suspended by virtue of this section from the time when the notification is so served until such time as the order is revoked under subsection (5) or (6) below.
(5) Any order under this section shall be reviewed by the Committee not later than three months after the date of its making and subsequently at intervals of not more than three months; and where the Committee on any such review are satisfied that the continuation in force of the order is not necessary for the protection of members of the public they shall revoke the order.
(6) Where the case of a person to whom an order under this section applies is determined by the Professional Conduct Committee under section 26 of the principal Act, the Professional Conduct Committee shall revoke the order either forthwith or, if they make an order for immediate suspension taking effect under section 29A(3) of that Act, as from the time when that order so takes effect.
(7) Where an order under this section is revoked under subsection (5) or (6) above the registrar shall forthwith serve on the person concerned a notification of the revocation of the order.
(8) Any notification required to be served on a person by the registrar under this section may be served in the same manner as a notification under section 26(4) of the principal Act; and subsections (4) and (5) of section 29A of that Act (application to court for termination of order under that section) and section 30A of that Act (effect of suspension of registration) shall have effect in relation to an order under this section as they have effect in relation to an order of the Professional Conduct Committee under the said section 29A.
(9) The Council shall report to the Dental Board of the Republic of Ireland every case in which an order is made under this section in respect of a person registered in the dental register of the Republic of Ireland.".
17 Clause 17, page 11, line 3, leave out "then (subject to subsection (3) below.".
18 Clause 17, page 11, line 6, leave out "subsection (3) and ".
19 Clause 17, page 11, line 18, leave out from second "when"to end of line 21 and insert "the period for bringing an appeal against the said direction under section 16 above expires or, if such an appeal is brought, the appeal is determined or withdrawn or is struck out for want of prosecution".
20 Clause 18, page 12, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

"(a) the period for bringing an appeal against the direction under section 16 above expires; or

(b) if such an appeal is brought, the appeal is determined of withdrawn or is struck out for want of prosecution".

21 Clause 21 page 13, line 33, leave out "Part III of the Dentists Act 1983" and insert "section (Interim suspension orders) of the Dentists Act 1983 (interim suspension orders) or under Part III of that Act".
22 Clause 23, page 14, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) For paragraph 14 of Schedule Ito the principal Act there shall be substituted—
'14.—(1) The Dental Auxiliaries Committee shall consist of—

(a) the President;

(b) at least eight (but not more than ten) other members of the Council, being either elected or nominated members or persons within paragraph 2(2)(b) of Part I of this Schedule; and

(c) nine persons not within paragraph (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph.

(2) At least two of the members referred to in subparagraph (1)(b) of this paragraph shall not be registered dentists.
(3) Three of the nine members referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c) of this paragraph shall be appointed by the
618
Secretaries of State respectively concerned with health in England and Wales and Scotland and the head of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland acting jointly, and two of the three so appointed shall be registered dentists who are or have been employed in the course of the provision of national health services.
(4) The three members so appointed and their successors shall retire together at the end of successive three year periods, and an appointment made in the course of one of those periods to fill a casual vacancy shall be for the remainder of that period.
(5) The other six of the members referred to in subparagraph (1)(c) of this paragraph shall he elected by members of all the classes of dental auxiliaries established by regulations under this Act in such manner and at such intervals as may be provided by rules made by the Council.
(6) The Council shall pay to members of the Committee who are not members of the Council allowances and fees at the same rates as in the case of those who are members of the Council.
(7) The chairman of the Committee shall be chosen by the Committee from among the members of the Committee who are registered dentists.
(8) The Committee may appoint a sub-committee, which shall consist of not more than nine members, to deal with disciplinary questions connected with members of a class of dental auxiliaries.
(9) The member of the Council referred to in paragraph 2(2)(d) of Part I of this Schedule shall he elected by the Committee from among its members who have been elected under sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph; and a person so elected shall cease to be a member of the Council if he ceases to be a member of the Committee or when the term of office of elected members of the Council next expires in accordance with paragraph 3(1) of the said Part I. whichever first occurs.'.".
23 Clause 25, Page 15, line 12, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
24 Clause 25, Page 15, line 18, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct"
25 Clause 27, page 16, line 17, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
Clause 27, page 16, line 20, leave out "words 'the
26 Disciplinary Committee'"and insert "word 'Committee' in the first place where it occurs".
27 Clause 27, page 16, line 32, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 27.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, may I just detain your Lordships for 60 seconds on Amendment No. 16? In my understanding, this amendment relates directly to the recent problems within the profession concerning the administration of anaesthesia and anaesthetics. I appreciate the concern of the Government, and the concern of the honourable Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, Mr. Heddle, whose representations, which I believe to be misguided and founded on reaction to the popular press rather than to scientific facts, have pressurised the General Dental Council via the Department of Health and Social Security into producing guidelines for the profession as to the use and administration of anaesthetic drugs.
I have to declare an interest in that these guidelines directly affect my own practice, where my partner and I specialise in the treatment of patients who have a

619
genuine fear of dentists. By being forced to take this step, the GDC are for the first time entering the political field, which I hope is not a sign of things to come. They do not need, nor require, any powers that can directly influence professional judgments as to the appropriate methods of treatment for different patients.
I am also very concerned at the possible wide applications of this new clause, which may mean that the General Dental Council will have to take action when dentists are convicted of other criminal offences. The clause will surely give them a power far greater than the original intention of the amendment. I do not expect explanations from the Minister, but I wish at this stage just to have my doubts on this matter placed on the record. I assure the Government that I shall be keeping a very careful watch on the way in which this clause in the Bill is implemented when it becomes law. If necessary, at a later stage, I shall use whatever powers are at my disposal to try to correct what I believe to be a very serious defect.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, should like to comment briefly on Amendment No. 16. I welcome this part of the Bill, in so far as it is necessary to have the right of immediate suspension in cases where the public might genuinely be considered to be at risk, pending the hearing of a criminal case. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the practice of any general dental practitioner who is suspended prior to any hearing would be protected and that he would not lose in any way if later he was found to be not guilty of the charges and not deserving of any disciplinary action.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend raised this point at an earlier stage of the Bill. I gave her certain assurances then, which I hope on reflection she will regard as satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause:
"Assimiliation of penalties in Northern Ireland with penalties in England, Wales and Scotland
.—(1) Each of the following provisions of the principal Act, namely—

(a) subsection (1) of section 34 (prohibition on practice of dentistry by laymen),

(b) subsection (2) of section 35 (prohibition on use of practitioners' titles by laymen), and

(c) subsection (l) of section 37 (restriction on individuals carrying on business of dentistry),

shall have effect in Northern Ireland as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof there were substituted the words 'on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fifth level on the standard scale'.
(2) Each of the following provisions of the principal Act, namely—

(a) subsections (2) and (4) of section 15 (restrictions on use of titles and descriptions by registered dentists),

(b) subsection (1) of section 38 (restrictions on bodies corporate carrying on the business of dentistry), and

(c) subsections (4) and (5) of section 41 (penalties for improper use of titles and descriptions by dental auxiliaries and other persons),

shall have effect in Northern Ireland as if for the reference to a fine not exceeding the amount there mentioned there were substituted a reference to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(3) In this section 'the standard scale' has the meaning given by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, and for the purposes of this section—

(a) the said section 37, and

(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in subsection (2) of the said section 37,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 46. These amendments are to bring the financial penalties under the 1957 Act for Northern Ireland into line with those for England, Scotland and Wales. It is obviously a sensible amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
29 Clause 30, page 17, line 21, after "section", insert "(Constitution of Education Committee), (Professional Conduct Committee),".
30 Clause 30, page 17, line 21, at end insert "and section. (Interim suspension orders)".
31 Clause 30, page 17, line 24, leave out "11" and insert "10, 11(6)".
32 Clause 30, page 17, line 24, leave out ", 24 and 25)" and insert "and 24".
33 Clause 30, page 17, line 33, leave out "(4), 2," and insert "(4B), (Constitution of Education Committee), (Professional Conduct Committee),".
34 Clause 30, page 17, line 33, after "13", insert "and section (Interim suspension orders) and sections".
35 Clause 30, page 17, line 34, after "paragraphs", insert "2, 11(a)".
36 Clause 30, page 18, line 1, leave out "paragraphs 2 and" and insert "paragraph".
37 In the Schedules, Schedule 1, page 19, line 8, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
38 Page 19, line 24, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
39 Schedule 2, page 22, line 39, leave out "(4)" and insert—

"(a) in subsection (1) for the words from the beginning to 'which' substitute 'The Preliminary Proceedings Committee and the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council': and

(b) in subsection (4)".

40 Schedule 2, page 23, line 8, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert "Professional Conduct".
41 Schedule 2, page 23, line 11, leave out "Disciplinary" and insert Professional Conduct".
42 Schedule 2, page 23, page 24, line 24, leave out paragraph 25.
43 Schedule 3, page 25, line 38, column 3, leave out from "onwards" to end of line 42 and insert "and paragraph 13".
44 Schedule 4, page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—

"1.—(1) For the purposes of enabling—

(a) the President of the Council to take office, and

(b) the Council and the Dental Auxiliaries Committee to be duly constituted in accordance with sections 1(2) to (4A) and 23(3) of this Act,

at the commencement of those provisions the appropriate elections or nominations shall be held or made before that commencement.
(2) Rules under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the election of members held by the Council for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply to an election to fill a casual vacancy; and any election held for those purposes—

(a) by the Council to elect the President, or

621

(b) by the Dental Auxiliaries Committee to elect a member of the Council.

shall be held in the like manner as if section 1(4B) or (as the case may be) section 23(3) of this Act were then in force.".
45 Schedule 3, page 23, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
"(1) Section (Professional Conduct Committee) of this Act shall not affect the hearing and determination of any case or other matter referred to the Disciplinary Committee before the commencement of that section.".
46 Schedule 3, page 27, line 26, at end add—
"Penalties for offences in Northern Ireland
7. Nothing in section (Assimilation of penalties in Northern Ireland with penalties in England, Wales and Scotland) of this Act shall affect the punishment for an offence committed before the commencement of that section.".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 46.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.24 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [82] as printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert "; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.".
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 26, leave out "and".
3 Clause 1, page 2, line 28, at end insert"; and
(c) section 86 (which provides for the auditing and examination of accounts).".
4 Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out from "(2)" to end of line 39 and insert "after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(bb) in any case where—

(i) the authority for the detention of a patient

(A) has been renewed for a period of one or two years under section 39(2)(b) of this Act; and

(B) is renewed for a further period of one year under that section; and

(ii) the patient has not, during the period referred to in sub-paragraph (i)(A) of this paragraph—

(A) appealed to the sheriff under section 39(7) of this Act; or

(B) been visited by the Mental Welfare Commission under paragraph (b) of this subsection,

to visit the patient before the expiry of the period of one year referred to in sub-paragraph (i)(B) of this paragraph, unless the patient has previously been discharged, and on any such visit to afford an opportunity, on request, for private interview to any such patient;'.".
5 Clause 2, page 3, line 23, leave out "to whom section 60E of this Act applies" and insert "mentioned in section 60E(1) or (2) of this Act".
6 Clause 4, page 4, line 22, leave out from first "or" to "of" in line 23 and insert "as mentioned in paragraph (b)(i)".
7 Clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end insert "; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.".".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 7. These are amendments to Clauses 1, 2 and 4. They all concern the Mental Welfare Commission. They are mainly of a minor or technical nature. However, Amendment No. 4 is worthy of attention. This amendment will ensure that there is an independent review by the commission of each detained patient at least every other year. Only a small proportion of detained patients remain in hospital for years on end, but it is important that these patients should be seen periodically by an outside agency to ensure that the continuation of their detention is not treated as a matter of routine because they have not availed themselves of their right to appeal for discharge. The Mental Welfare Commission already has a duty to visit patients regularly. Amendment No. 4 makes explicit provision for the intervals at which patients are to be visited.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 7, page 5, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 10 on page 6 and insert—
"'Appointment of mental health officers.
7B.—(1) A local authority shall appoint a sufficient number of persons for the purpose of discharging in relation to their area the functions of mental health officers under this Act.
(2) Any officer appointed by a local authority to act as a mental health officer after the date of coming into force of section 64(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (that is to say, 16th May 1975) but before the coming into force of section 7 of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983 shall he deemed to have been appointed under subsection (1) of this section as if that subsection and section 64(5)(bb) of the said Act of 1973 had come into force on 16th May 1975.
(3) On and after a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order no person shall be appointed to act as a mental health officer under subsection (1) of this section unless he is approved by the local authority as having competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and before appointing a person to act as a mental health officer, a local authority shall—

(a) ensure that the person has such qualifications, experience and competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and

(b) have regard to such other matters, as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) No person appointed to act as a mental health officer before the appointed day shall continue so to act on or after the appointed day unless—

(a) he is approved by the local authority as having competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and

(b) the local authority are satisfied that he has such qualifications, experience and competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder as the Secretary of State may direct.'.".

9 clause 7, page 7, line 28, after "'reception'", insert "where it first occurs".
10 clause 7, page 7, line 33, leave out "the" and insert "a".
11 clause 7, page 7, line 38, at end insert "as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than seven days before the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the patient was admitted to a hospital—".
12 clause 7, page 7, line 41, after "officer", and the Mental Welfare Commission".
13 clause 7, page 7, line 42, at end insert ", unless he has done so under section 32A(5) of this Act within the previous twenty-eight days"."
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 13. These amendments all relate to Clause 7 of the Bill, which deals with the appointment of mental health officers. This clause received considerable attention from your Lordships before it went to the other place. Your Lordships know that further improvements have been made to the clause. The first amendment makes it quite clear that on and after a day to be appointed no person who is not suitably qualified may continue to act as a mental health officer. The remaining amendments clarify and improve the provisions which specify the functions of mental health officers.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 8, page 9, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—
"(c) for subsection (4) there shall he substituted the following subsection—
'(4) A guardianship application shall be founded on and accompanied by two medical recommendations in the prescribed form and a recommendation by a mental health officer in such form; and

(a) each medical recommendation shall include—

(i) a statement of the form of mental disorder from which the patient is suffering being mental illness or mental handicap or both; and

(ii) a statement that the ground set out in subsection (1A)(a) of this section applies in relation to the patient,

being statements of opinion, together with the grounds on which those statements are based;

(b) the recommendation by the mental health officer shall include—

(i) a statement, being a statement of opinion, that the ground set out in subsection (1A)(b) of this section applies in relation to the patient, together with the grounds on which the statement is based; and

(ii) a statement as to whether he is related to the patient and of any pecuniary interest that he may have in the reception of the patient into guardianship.'."

15 Clause 10, page 10, line 13, leave out from "officer" to end of line 17 and insert—
"—
(a) within the period of seven days ending on the twenty-eighth day after his admission—

(i) to examine the patient or to obtain from another medical practitioner a report on the condition of the patient; and

(ii) to consult such other person or persons who appear to him to be principally concerned with the patient's medical treatment; and".

16 Clause 10, page 10, line 31, after "patient", insert ", the local authority".
17 Clause 10, page 12, line 2, leave out "six" and insert "two".
18 Clause 14, page 13, line 13, after "persons;" insert—
"(aa) where consent to the continued detention has not been obtained such report shall include a statement of the reasons for not obtaining such consent;".
19 Clause 14, page 13, line 34, at end insert "not later than seven days after the patient was detained".
20 Clause 14, page 13, line 38, at end insert ", as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than 7 days before the expiry of the period of 28 days referred to in subsection (3) of this section.".
21 Clause 14, page 13, line 40, at end insert "and the Mental Welfare Commission".
22 Clause 14, page 14, line 3, at end insert—
"(7) A patient who has been detained in a hospital under this section shall not be further detained under this section nor detained under section 31 of this Act immediately after the expiry of the period of detention under this section.".
23 Clause 16, page 14, line 36, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 40 and insert—

"(a) in subsection (1) for the words 'one year' there shall be substituted the words 'six months';

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words 'one year' there shall he substituted the words 'six months'; and

(ii) for die words 'two years' in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words 'one year';

24 Clause 16, page 14, line 43, leave out from beginning to "liable" in line 5 on page 15, and insert "on the day when a patient who is".
25 Clause 16, page 15, line 6, after "Act", insert "would cease to be so liable under this section".
26 Clause 16, page 15, line 6, leave out lines 26 to 38 and insert—
"(c) for subsection (4) there shall he substituted the following subsection
'(4) Within the period of two months ending with the day on which a patient who is subject to guardianship under this Part of this Act would cease under this section to be so liable in default of the renewal of the authority for his guardianship, it shall be the duty—

(a) of the responsible medical officer to examine the patient or to obtain from another medical practitioner a report on the condition of the patient; and, if it appears to him that the ground set out in section 25(1A)(a) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient, to furnish to such mental health officer as the local authority concerned may direct a report to that effect in the prescribed form along with the report first mentioned if such a report has been obtained; and

(b) of the mental health officer to consider whether the ground set out in section 25(1A)(b) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient and, if it appears to him that it does continue so to apply, to furnish to the local authority concerned and to the Mental Welfare Commission a report to that effect in the prescribed form along with the report or reports furnished to him under paragraph (a) of this subsection.'."

27 Clause 16, page 15, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 16.
28 Clause 17, page 16, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 10 on page 17 and insert—
"(a) for subsection (2) there shall be subsituted the following subsections—

'(2) The responsible medical officer or the Mental Welfare Commission shall make an order for discharge in respect of a patient where he is or they are satisfied—

(a) in the case of a patient liable to be detained in a hospital under this Part of this Act, that—

(i) he is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment; or

(ii) it is not necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment;

(b) in the case of a patient subject to guardianship, that he is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants his remaining under guardianship.

(2A) The local authority concerned or the Mental Welfare Commission shall make an order for discharge in respect of a patient subject to guardianship where they are satisfied that it is not necessary in the interests of the welfare of the patient that he should remain under guardianship'."

29 Clause 18, page 17, line 17, after "authority)", insert—

"(a) the words "or by the local health authority concerned" and "or, as the case may be, to that authority", shall cease to have effect; and

(b) "

30 Clause 18, page 17, line 19, leave out "or, as the case may be, section 25(1A)".
31 Clause 18, page 17, line 23, at end insert—

"(a) the words "or subject to guardianship", "or, as the case may be to the local health authority concerned" and "or, as the case may be, to that authority" shall cease to have effect; and

(b)".

32 Clause 18, page 17, line 26, leave out "or as the case may be, section 25(1A)".
33 line 27, at end insert—
"(3) After subsection (2) of the said section 44 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(2A) An order for the discharge of a patient who is subject to guardianship shall not be made by his nearest relative except after giving not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to the local authority concerned; and within that period—

(a) if it appears to the local authority that the ground set out in section 25(1A)(b) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient they shall inform the responsible medical officer of the notice given by the nearest relative; and

(b) if it appears to the responsible medical officer that the ground set out in section 25(1A)(a) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient he shall inform the local authority; and

(c) the local authority shall inform the nearest relative of the views taken by them and by the responsible medical officer,

and in that event—

(i) any order for the discharge of the patient made by that relative in pursuance of the notice shall cease to have effect; and

(ii) no further order for the discharge of the patient shall he made by that relative during the period of six months beginning with the date on which that relative is so informed.'."

34 Clause 20, page 18, line 16, at end insert—
"(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "in respect of a report under section thirty-nine, section forty or section forty-four" there shall be substituted the words "under this Part of this Act"; and

(ii) for the words "the said sections" there shall be substituted the words "sections 32A, thirty-nine, forty-four";

(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(2) An appeal under this Part of this act shall be made by way of summary application to a sheriff of the sheriffdom—

(a) within which the patient is resident at the time when the appeal is made; or

(b) where the patient is a resident patient in a hospital at the time when the appeal is made, within which the hospital is situated';".

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 34. At the same time I wish to speak to Amendment No. 65. All of these amendments relate to the provisions in Part IV of the principal Act. This deals with the detention and the guardianship of patients, as amended by Clauses 8 to 20 of the Bill. The amendments which were made in the other place are extensive but some are concerned with relatively minor clarifications and improvements. There are two matters to which I wish briefly to draw your Lordships' attention. The first relates to Amendments Nos. 14, 26 and 28 to 33 inclusive. These amendments make changes to the procedures which relate to
626
guardianship. Their effect is to emphasise the point that guardianship is essentially about the welfare of the patients concerned. In view of this, it is sensible to give the mental health officer and the local authority a greater part to play in the procedures for reception into guardianship, renewal of authority for guardianship, and so on.
The second matter to which I wish briefly to refer is the subject of Amendment No. 17. This is short, but it is very significant. It reduces from six hours to two hours the period during which a nurse of the prescribed class—that is, a registered nurse—may detain an informal patient. Your Lordships had serious reservations about these provisions. Similar reservations were expressed in the other place. However, we believe it is right that a formal procedure should be available to nurses who wish to make use of it in circumstances where they feel that acting to prevent a patient from exposing himself or others to harm may result in legal action being taken against them.
As your Lordships will appreciate, two hours is a relatively short period of time but it should nearly always be sufficient for a doctor to be brought to any Scottish hospital in order to take the matter out of the hands of the nurse.
I shall not explain the other minor changes, unless there is any matter about which your Lordships wish to ask me.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lyell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
35 Clause 21, page 19, line 2, after "appeal", insert "by way of summary application".
36 Clause 21, page 19, line 2, leave out "for" and insert "of".
37 Clause 21, page 20, line 42, leave out "remitted under subsection (2) of this section" and insert "released on licence or discharged under supervision under subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) of this section".
38 Clause 21, page 21, leave out from beginning of line 1 to end of line 24 and insert—
"(2) If the sheriff notifies the Secretary of State—

(a) that the patient would be entitled to be absolutely discharged, the Secretary of State shall—

(i) by warrant direct that the patient be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been so removed; or

(ii) exercise any power of releasing the patient on licence or discharging the patient under supervision which would have been exercisable if the patient had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital;

(b) that the patient would be entitled to be conditionally discharged, the Secretary of State may—

(i) by warrant direct that the patient be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been so removed; or

(ii) exercise any power of releasing the patient on licence or discharging the patient under supervision which would have been exercisable if the patient had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital; or

(iii) decide that the patient should continue to be detained in a hospital,

627
and on his arrival in the prison or other institution or, as the case may be, his release or discharge as aforesaid, the transfer direction and the restriction direction shall cease to have effect.".

39 Clause 21, page 19, line 31, leave out "for" and insert "of".
40 Clause 21, page 19, line 42, leave out "for" and insert "of".
41 Clause 21, page 22, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 23 and insert—
"60E.—(1) Sections 60A, 60B and 60D of this Act shall apply to a person who—

(a) is subject to—

(i) a direction which by virtue of section 64(3) of this Act; or

(ii) an order which by virtue of section 174(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, has the like effect as a hospital order and a restriction order; or

(b) is treated as subject to a hospital order and a restriction order by virtue of section 80(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 or section 79(2)(a) of this Act,

as they apply to a restricted patient who is subject to a restriction order and references in the said sections 60A, 60B and 60D to the relevant hospital order or restriction order shall he construed as references to the direction under section 64(1) of this Act or the order under section 174(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
(2) Sections 60A to 60C of this Act shall apply to a person who is treated as subject to a transfer direction and a restriction direction by virtue of section 80(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 or section 79(2)(a) of this Act as they apply to a restricted patient who is subject to a restriction direction and references in the said sections 60A and 60C to the relevant transfer direction or the restriction direction shall be construed as references to the transfer direction or restriction direction to which that person is treated as subject by virtue of the said section 80(2) or 79(2)(a).".
42 Clause 24, page 24, line 4, after "imprisonment)", insert—
"(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

'(1) Where a transfer direction and a restriction direction have been given in respect of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment and the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that the person is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital for medical treatment; or

(b) that it is not necessary for the health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment; and (in either case)

(c) that it is not appropriate for the person to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment,

he shall—

(a) by warrant direct that the person be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been so removed; or

(b) exercise any power of releasing the person on licence or discharging the person under supervision, which would have been exercisable if he had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital.

and on his arrival in the prison or other institution, or as the case may be, his release or discharge as aforesaid, the transfer direction and the restriction direction shall cease to have effect.

(1A) Where in the case of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State is satisfied as to the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection but not as to the matters referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection he may—

(a) by warrant direct that the person be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been removed; or

628

(b) exercise any power of releasing the person on licence or discharging the person under supervision, which would have been exercisable if he had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital; or

(c) decide that the person should continue to be detained in a hospital,

and on his arrival in the prison or other institution or, as the case may be, his release or discharge as aforesaid, the transfer direction and the restriction direction shall cease to have effect;' ".
43 Clause 25, page 24, line 21, leave out from "section" to end of line 35 and insert "and the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that the person is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it approppriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital for medical treatment; or

(b) that it is not necessary for the health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment; and (in either case),

(c) that it is not appropriate for the person to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment,

he shall—

(i) by warrant direct that the person be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been so removed; or

(ii) exercise any power of releasing the person on licence or discharging the person under supervision, which would have been exercisable if he had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital,

and on his arrival in the prison or other institution, or as the case may be, his release or discharge as aforesaid, the transfer direction and the restriction direction shall cease to have effect.
(3) Where in the case of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section the Secretary of State is satisfied as to the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection but not as to the matters referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection he may—

(i) by warrant direct that the person be remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital, there to be dealt with as if he had not been so removed; or

(ii) exercise any power of releasing the person on licence or discharging the person under supervision, which would have been exercisable if he had been remitted to any prison or other institution in which he might have been detained if he had not been removed to hospital; or

(iii) decide that the person should continue to be detained in hospital,

and on his arrival in the prison or other institution or, as the case may be, his release or discharge as aforesaid, the transfer direction and the restriction direction shall cease to have effect.".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 43. Most of these amendments relate to a very small group of patients, those who are serving sentences of imprisonment and those who are transferred to mental hospitals for treatment. Amendments Nos. 38, 42 and 43 spell out, of necessity at some length, what action the Secretary of State may take when such a patient no longer needs to be in hospital. As your Lordships appreciate, the law must be precise in such matters. The principal Act will be greatly improved by these amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 26, page 25, line 16, at end insert "; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.".
45 Clause 26, page 25, line 20, at end insert "; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.".
46 Clause 26, page 26, line 32, leave out "and".
47 Clause 26, page 26, line 34, at end insert ";and
(e) section 86 (which provides for the auditing and examination of accounts)".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 47. This small group of amendments will improve the provisions of Clause 26 of the Bill, which deals with the constitution of the state hospital management committee.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 Clause 29, page 28, line 34, leave out ", 60 C".
49 Clause 29, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
"(3A) Where any person has given a certificate under subsection (2)(a) or (b) of this section he shall send a copy thereof to the Mental Welfare Commission within seven days of the day on which the certificate was given.".
50 Clause 29, page 30, line 44, at end insert—
"(4A) Where any person has given a certificate under subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this section he shall send a copy thereof to the Mental Welfare Commission within seven days of the day on which the certificate was given.".
51 Clause 29, page 32, line 19, at end insert—
"(4) Where a patient is given treatment under this section the responsible medical officer shall, within seven days of the day on which the treatment is given, notify the Mental Welfare Commission—
(a) as to which of paragraph (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of this section applied in relation to the patient; and (b) as to the nature of the treatment given to the patient.".
52 Clause 29, page 32, line 26, leave out "93B", and insert "93C".
53 Clause 30, page 32, line 42, after "Act", insert "or, in the case of a patient subject to guardianship, the local authority concerned".
54 Clause 30, page 32, line 45, after "detained", insert "or subject to guardianship".
55 Clause 30, page 33, line 2, after "detention", insert "or guardianship".
56 Clause 30, page 33, line 5, leave out "about his detention and treatment".
57 Clause 30, page 33, line 8, after "detention" insert ", or his reception into guardianship, or any renewal of the authority for his detention or guardianship.".
58 Clause 30, page 33, line 19, after "hospital", insert "or his reception into guardianship".
59 Clause 30, page 33, line 24, after "aforesaid", insert "or, as the case may be, the local authority concerned in relation to a patient subject to guardianship as aforesaid".
60 Clause 31, page 34, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert "the patient an opportunity to be heard, either—

(a) in person (unless cause to the contrary has been shown); or

(b) by means of a representative.".

61 Clause 32, page 36, line 4, at end insert "and shall, within seven days of the date on which they withheld the postal packet or anything contained in it, notify the Mental Welfare Commission of—

(a) the name of the patient concerned; and

(b) the nature of the postal packet or contents withheld; and

(c) the reaons for withholding the postal packet or contents".

62 Clause 33, page 37, line 17, leave out "admission" and insert "detention and discharge".
63 Clause 30, page 33, line 17, leave out second "to" and insert "in and from".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 to 63. I hope your Lordships will agree to take together this group of amendments since they deal with the miscellaneous clauses of the Bill. Those are Clauses 29 to 36. The effect of all these amendments is to improve and clarify in a number of relatively minor ways the provisions which relate to matters such as the provision of treatment, information for the patients and their relatives and the code of practice. Most of these amendments were put down by the Government to accept proposals made in Committee stage in another place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Lyell)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Leave out Clause 37.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 103, which alters the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the removal of Clause 37. The Opposition have cooperated with the Government to ensure that this important Bill reaches the statute book, but they were not willing to agree to Clause 37, which there was little opportunity to debate. The Government regret the loss of this clause but the staff of the state hospital who would have benefited from these provisions will no doubt appreciate that their interests could not be allowed to stand in the way of the Bill as a whole.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
65 After Clause 37 insert the following new clause:
"Right of appeal against transfer.
—.(1) In section 37 of the principal Act (which makes provision for the transfer of patients)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) the words 'or be transferred to a hospital with the consent of the Mental Welfare Commission and of the board of management of the hospital' shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (3), paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect; and

(c) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

'(4) Where a patient is transferred to a State hospital under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section he or his nearest relative may, within twenty-eight days of the date of the transfer, appeal by way of summary application to a sheriff of the sheriffdom within which the hospital from which the patient was transferred is situated against the decision of the board of management to transfer the patient; and on any such appeal the sheriff shall order the return of the patient to the hospital from which he was transferred unless he is satisfied that the patient, on account of his dangerous, violent or criminal propensities, requires treatment under conditions of special security, and cannot suitably be cared for in a hospital other than a State hospital.'."
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. I spoke to this amendment earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
66 Schedule 1, page 47, line 20, leave out "that section as so amended" and insert "the provisions inserted by that section".
67 Schedule 1, page 47, line 21, leave out "that date" and insert "the date of coming into force of those amendments (except where such steps have already been taken before that date)."
68 Schedule 2, page 47, line 33, leave out "81" and insert "80".
69 Schedule 2, page 47, line 35, leave out second "(a)".
70 Schedule 2, page 47, line 36, leave out "third" and insert "second".
71 Schedule 2, page 47, line 38, leave out "(5)" and insert "(6)".
72 Schedule 2, page 47, line 41, leave out "(a)".
73 Schedule 2, page 47, page 48, line 17, leave out "Section 29(3)".
74 Schedule 2, page 47, line 17, leave out lines 30 to 33.
75 Schedule 2, page 47, line 44, at end insert—

"( ) in subsection (2)(b) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "subject to paragraph (bb) of this subsection,";

( ) in subsection (3) after "(b)", there shall be inserted the words "or (bb)";".

75A Schedule 2, page 50, leave out lines 5 to 8.
76 Schedule 2, page 47, leave out from beginning of line 9 to "after" in line 10 and insert—
"10. In section 28 (which makes provision for the approval of applications by the sheriff)—
(a) in subsection (1) for the words "the sheriff" there shall be substituted the words "a sheriff of the sheriffdom—

(a) within which the patient is resident at the time when the application is submitted; or

(b) where the patient is a resident patient in a hospital at the time when the application is submitted, within which the hospital is situated,";

(b) in subsection (2)—
(i)".
77 Schedule 2, page 47, line 12, at end insert—
(ii) after the words "this section" where they occur for the second time there shall be inserted—"(a)"; and
(iii) at the end there shall be added the words "; and
(b) shall, where a mental health officer makes an application for admission in respect of a patient under section 26(4) of this Act and such application includes a statement of the mental health officer's opinion that the application should not be granted, afford the mental health officer an opportunity of being heard."

10A. In section 29(2) (which makes provision as to the effect of applications for admission or guardianship) the word "medical" shall cease to have effect.

10B. In section 39(5) (which makes provision as to the renewal of authority for detention or guardianship)—

(a) for the words "subsection (7)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (7) and (8)"; and

(b) after the word "furnished" there shall be inserted the words "to a board of management or a local authority".

10C. In section 43 (which makes provision as to the discharge of patients)—

(a) in subsection (4), "(a)" and paragraph (b) and the word "or" which precedes it shall cease to have effect;

632

(b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—

"(6) A patient subject to guardianship shall cease to be so subject where—

(a) the sheriff has approved under section 28 of this Act an application for his admission to a hospital; or

(b) he is admitted to a hospital under section 31 of this Act.".".

78 Schedule 2, page 50, line 14, after "patient)" insert—
"(i) after the word 'where' there shall be inserted '—
(a)';
(ii) the words 'or, as the case may be, the local health authority concerned' shall cease to have effect;
(iii) for the word 'and' there shall be substituted the words '; or
(b) the local authority informs the nearest relative under subsection (2A) of this section'; and
(iv)".
79 Schedule 2, page 50, line 15, after "(8)", insert "(a)".
79A Schedule 2, page 47, line 41, after "patient;", insert—
"(ia) for the words 'the last foregoing section' there shall be substituted the words 'section 60(3) of this Act';".
80 Schedule 2, page 51, line 29, leave out "and" and insert—
"(aa) in subsection (3) for the words 'an order restricting his discharge' there shall be substituted the words 'a restriction order in respect of him'; and".
81 Schedule 2, page 47, line 38, leave out "and".
82 Schedule 2, page 47, line 42, at end insert "; and
(c) in subsection (5)—

(i) for the words 'three months' there shall be substituted the words 'one month';

(ii) after the words 'to cancel the direction' there shall be substituted the words, 'and the sheriff shall cancel the direction unless he is satisfied that the grounds are satisfied upon which an application may be made for the admission of the person to a hospital under Part IV of this Act'.".

83 Schedule 2, page 47, line 48, at end insert—
"16A. In section 68(1) (which makes further provision as to persons removed to hospital while awaiting trial etc.)—

(a) after the word 'section' where it occurs for the third time there shall be inserted '174A'; and

(b) after '178' there shall be inserted '375A,'.".

84 Schedule 2, page 52, line 22, leave out "and".
85 Schedule 2, page 47, line 25, at end insert "; and
(iii) for the words 'and (7)' there shall be substituted the words '(7) and (8)'.".
86 Schedule 2, page 47, line 50, at end insert—
"21A. In section 81(2) (which makes provision relating to patients removed to Scotland from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) for the words 'sixty-three of this Act' there shall be substituted the words '174 or 375 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975'.".
87 Schedule 2, page 54, leave out lines 2 to 8 and insert—
"(5) Any reference, however expressed, in this Act to a patient admitted to or detained in, or liable to be admitted to or detained in, a hospital or received, or liable to be received, into guardianship under this Act (other than under Part IV thereof) or under Part V of this Act shall include a reference to a patient who is admittted to or detained in, or liable to be admitted to or detained in, a hospital or received or liable to be received into guardianship under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1974.".
88 Schedule 2, page 47, line 8, at end insert—
"24A. In Schedule 2 (which makes provision for the application of Part IV of the Act to patients admitted to hospital or received into guardianship under Part V of the Act)—

(a) in the heading—

(i) in column 2 for "ss.58 and 71" there shall be substituted "s.58"; and

(ii) in column 3 for "(ss.63 and 64)" there shall be substituted "(s.64 and ss. I 75 and 375 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975)";

(b) the entry relating to section 34 shall cease to have effect;

633

(c) in the entry relating to section 36—

(i) in column 2 for the word "None" there shall be substituted the words "Subsection (4) shall be omitted"; and

(ii) in column 3 for the words "and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "(3) and (4)";

(d) in the entry relating to section 39, in column 2—

(i) for the words from "day on which he was so" to "as the case may be" there shall be substituted the words "day on which he was so admitted or so received"; and

(ii) at the end there shall be added the words "; in subsection (3) for the words "this Part" there shall be substituted the words "Part V" ";

(e) in the entry relating to section 41 in column 2 for the words from "In" to "omitted" there shall be substituted the word "None";

(f) in the entry relating to section 43 in column 2—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "In subsections (1) and (2) for the words "this Part" there shall be substituted the words "Part V";

(ii) for the words "the words 'forty or forty-four' shall be omitted" there shall be substituted the words "for the words '32A, thirty-nine, forty or forty-four' there shall be substituted the words 'thirty-nine'"; and

(iii) the words "or a guardianship application" and "or subject to guardianship" shall cease to have effect; and

(g) in the entry relating to section 51, in column 2, the words "section forty, or" shall cease to have effect.".

89 Schedule 2, page 47, line 19, leave out "section 25(1A)" and insert "the ground set out in section 25(1A)(a)".
90 Schedule 2, page 47, line 20, at end insert—
"(aa) in subsection (5) after the word "satisfied" there shall be inserted the words—
("(a) after taking into consideration the evidence of a mental health officer, that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the person that he should be placed under guardianship; and
(b)".".
91 Schedule 2, page 55, line 3, leave out "section 25(1A)" and insert "the ground set out in section 25(1A)(a)".
92 Schedule 2, page 47, line 4, at end insert—
"(aa) in subsection (8) after the word 'satisfied' there shall be inserted the words—

'(a) after taking into consideration the evidence of a mental health officer, that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the person that he should be placed under guardianship; and

(b)'.".

93 Schedule 3, page 56, line 11, column 3, at end insert "In section 29(2), the word 'medical'.".
94 Schedule 3, page 56, line 14, column 3, at end insert "In section 37, in subsection (1)(b) the words 'or be transferred to a hospital with the consent of the Mental Welfare Commission and of the board of management of the hospital'; in subsection (3), paragraph (d).".
95 Schedule 3, page 56, line 15, column 3, leave out "in subsection (2), '—(a)',".
96 Schedule 3, page 56, line 22, column 3, at end insert "In section 41, in subsection (2), the words 'or subsection (1) of section forty', in subsection (3) the words 'or section forty'.".
97 Schedule 3, page 56, line 23, column 3, after "43", insert ", in subsection".
98 Schedule 3, page 56, line 24, column 3, at end insert ", in subsection (4),'—(a)' and paragraph (b) and the word 'or' which precedes it, in subsection (5), the words 'or by the local health authority concerned' and 'or, as the case may be, to that authority'.".
99 Schedule 3, page 56, line 25, column 3, leave out "Section 44(1)" and insert "In section 44, subsection (1), in subsection (2) the words 'or subject to guardianship', 'or, as the case may be, to the local health authority concerned', 'or, as the case may be, to that authority', in subsection (3) the words 'or, as the case may be, the local health authority concerned'.".
100 Schedule 3, page 56, column 3, leave out lines 26 and 27.
101 Schedule 3, page 56, column 3, leave out line 28 and insert "In section 58(3), '—(a)' and paragraph (b) and the word 'and' which precedes it.".
102 Schedule 3, page 56, line 35, column 3, at end insert "In Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 34, in the entry relating to section 43, in column 2 the words 'or a guardianship application' and 'or subject to guardianship', and in the entry relating to section 51, in column 2 the words 'section forty, or'.".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66 to 102 en bloc. The provisions in the schedules to the Bill are, as usual, transitional, consequential and minor. All the amendments affect the schedules to the Bill and are mainly concerned with technical detail. I will, however, draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 88, where in sub-paragraph (d)(i) on page 19 of the Marshalled List before us today, the printer has omitted from the end of the second line the word "the". With that proviso, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
103 In the Title, line 2, leave out from "1960;" to "and" in line 5.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 103. I spoke to this amendment earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Lyell.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Fees and Awards) Bill
6.33 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is designed to restore the position of overseas students in two important respects to what it was understood to be before a ruling given in your Lordships' House on 16th December last. There would have been serious consequences for institutions of higher education and for public expenditure, and also much uncertainty for students themselves, if the Government did not seek to have the regulations for which it provides made as early as possible before the next academic year.
It has been the practice under successive Governments for overseas students to be treated differently from home students in three particular ways. First, they have not been entitled to mandatory awards, which are not the concern of this Bill; secondly, they have not been eligible for a variety of other grants—discretionary awards—that may be offered by education authorities, research councils and others; thirdly, they have been charged higher fees than home students. Under the present Government their tuition fees are expected to cover the full cost of their education, but previous Governments, too, have operated a differential fee system. The distinction between home and overseas students for these purposes has been based on the concept of "ordinary

635
residence". Students were categorised as home students if they had been ordinarily resident in this country for a specified period, usually three years. The test of whether or not a student was ordinarily resident here was generally taken to be that of whether or not his real home was here. For example, boys and girls who came here for a few years to go to school were believed not to become ordinarily residents here if their real home remained in another country.
Last year, however, your Lordships ruled that the question to be asked was: has the applicant shown that he has habitually and normally resided in the United Kingdom from choice and for a settled purpose throughout the prescribed period, apart from temporary or occasional absences? This clarification provided certainty in an area which had been increasingly open to doubt. But it meant that a student's ordinary residence alone was no longer a sufficient basis for distinguishing between home and overseas students, mainly because it brought within the category of home students those who come here simply to receive their education by attending an independent school or a college of further education. Under the December ruling, such students can establish ordinary residence here for the required period during their school or college course and hence qualify to receive a grant from their local education authority and to pay the home rate of fee for higher education. This change has considerable public expenditure consequences, and the Government therefore wish to restore the situation broadly to what it was before the 16th December judgment, in particular for this group of students.
It is, however, necessary to ensure that we do so within the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. This Act, which was enacted under a Labour Administration, recognised that, although people who have demonstrated that they are properly settled here should be treated equally and enjoy equal access to benefits, it is unnecessary to bestow the same benefits on those who come here for a limited and temporary purpose. Section 41 of the Act therefore contains provisions which allow actions that would be discriminatory to be treated as though they were not. It has been used since the Act came into effect to allow higher fees to be charged to overseas students. Under Section 41(1), acts done under statutory authority are not to be regarded as discriminatory. Under Section 41(2), discrimination on the basis of nationality, ordinary residence or period of residence is permitted where such discrimination takes place in pursuance of arrangements made with ministerial approval.
Because the rules of eligibility for mandatory awards are statutory, they are automatically exempted from the provisions of the Act under the provisions of Section 41(1). It was therefore possible for the Government to amend the rules to achieve the desired effect by amending the relevant regulations. Those amendments are contained in the Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1983, which were laid before the House on 30th March.
The two other ways in which overseas students have been treated differently have been covered by arrangements for the charging of differential fees and the
636
adoption of particular rules of eligibility for discretionary awards. These arrangements are made under Section 41(2), which allows Ministers to legitimate discrimination related to ordinary residence. Such arrangements can, however, no longer be made to serve this purpose because they depend on the test of ordinary residence. The Government therefore decided to legislate to give statutory authority to the charging of higher fees to overseas students and to the adoption of limited rules of eligibility for discretionary awards.
The Bill creates two new regulation-making powers. We are proceeding in this way primarily because of the need to consult with the local authority associations and with a wide variety of other bodies about the detailed provisions of the regulations. We have specified that the negative resolution procedure should apply to such regulations because in present circumstances it must be possible, if the need arose, for the regulations to be made and to come into operation while Parliament is not sitting. The noble Baroness, Lady David, will, however, know that even in the very short time available before the Dissolution we have done our best to produce a first draft of the regulations to be made under Clause 1 and to give the spokesmen for other parties the fullest possible insight into our thinking on the content of regulations to be made under the Bill.
Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring or authorising the charging of higher fees to those who lack the necessary connection with the United Kingdom that will be specified in the regulations. The basic test will continue to be ordinary residence, but exceptions will be specified to allow European Community students to be treated as home students for the purposes of fees, and to exclude from treatment as home students those who have been in Britain only or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education.
It is our firm intention that the regulations should not exclude from home fee status anyone who would have been entitled to it before the December judgment, and in some significant and, I hope, welcome respects we have proposed that the regulations should be more generous in this respect than the situation which obtained previously. These are, first, that we propose to grant home fee status to the children of immigrants accepted for settlement from the moment of their arrival in this country. This will help to ensure that they are able to take full advantage of those parts of our education system which charge fees on the same basis as home students. Secondly, we propose that entitlement to pay the home rate of fee should not be affected if the student has not been ordinarily resident in this country as required only because the student, his spouse or his parent was temporarily employed outside the country. We recognise that temporary employment abroad may, like an elephant, be difficult to define, but we believe that it is nevertheless an animal that you recognise when you see it. We believe that these arrangements will be helpful to many who are working abroad, often in the interests of this country and its trade and industry.

637
Thirdly, we propose that the regulations should not authorise the continuation of the present practice in some institutions of charging differential fees for board and lodging to overseas students (except in the limited circumstances where some colleges, usually the former teacher training colleges, provide the mandatory award student with free board and lodging in lieu of an element in his grant). The differential charge to overseas students that is involved is much resented and has been very actively campaigned against. The Government understand the reasons why these practices have developed, and, indeed, the voluntary colleges which are Exchequer-financed have kept in step with them. But it is clear that only minimal additional income results from them. The removal of the differential may actually help to achieve the economic use of residential accommodation by encouraging some overseas students to take up residence. Finally, we propose that home fee status should be granted to refugees, asylees, their spouses and children from the moment of their arrival in this country.
Clause 2 similarly allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that will in turn allow various bodies that make discretionary awards to students for education, training or research to adopt rules of eligibility for those awards that confine them to applicants with the specified connection with the United Kingdom. The preparation of these regulations is at a less advanced stage, but it is envisaged that they will allow award-making bodies to make rules similar to those that now apply to mandatory awards, to exclude students who have been in Britain only or mainly for the purposes of full-time education. We shall also continue the present practice of allowing home student status for refugees and asylees, those temporarily employed abroad and the children of European Community migrant workers.
My Lords, I hope I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that there is an urgent need for this Bill, and that the Government's approach to the regulations to be made under it is fair and not ungenerous. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
6.43 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his full and fast exposition of this Bill—we clearly are in a great hurry today—and, indeed, for his explanation about the draft regulations, too. I should also like to thank him and his officials for having sent me a copy of the draft regulations. We on these Benches will give support to the Bill now that certain assurances have been given, although, as I have warned the noble Earl, I shall have one or two questions to ask.
It would be fair to say, I think, that the need for clarification of the definition of an overseas student and of the phrase "ordinarily resident" has been seen for some time, as witness the court cases which finally led up to the Law Lords' judgment last December. What caused the pressing need for a firm definition was the consternation and difficulty created when the
638
Government announced, in November 1979, that in future overseas students would have to pay full cost fees. Since then the need for awards has grown. There has been much uncertainty in institutions and in local authorities, as well as among students, and indeed considerable hardship for many of the students. The letter bags of MPs have been full of cases their constituents wish taken up. In spite of this, and in spite of the Select Committee for Education and Science warning the Secretary of State that we needed a new definition and that if he waited upon the courts there would be a delay of two to three years, no action was taken. The courts were waited on, and there was a delay, as predicted, of two and a half years.
Then, in December 1982 came the Scarman ruling, which I take it is accepted by all parties. That caused consternation and disarray among Ministers and in the department. But why, my Lords? Why had it not been foreseen as a possibility? Why were they not prepared for it? Were they so confident of their own legal advice? After all, either the old "real home" definition, as under the Karminski ruling, would have been accepted and the lower court's ruling upheld, or it would not and the more commonsense definition, the "natural and ordinary" meaning, accepted. And this is what happened.
I want to ask, first: why were not Ministers prepared for this second possibility? Secondly, since the judgment was last December, why did it take three and a half months before a Statement on mandatory awards was made on 30th March, and four and a half months before this Bill that we are dealing with today was introduced? Was there prolonged discussion and disagreement on the possibility of getting retrospective legislation through Parliament? One can only speculate, and I fear the Minister will not tell us. But there is no doubt that the Government have been guilty of both dilatoriness and incompetence.
Having delayed and having procrastinated, suddenly at the end of April Ministers were in a hurry this Bill was read a first time on 21st April. The usual time gap of a week and two weekends between First and Second Reading was not honoured, and the Second Reading took place on 27th April, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary introducing the Bill saying:
"This Bill is an urgent measure";
—and, a little later:
"I hope the House will recognise the urgency of this legislation",
and,
"urgent action is also necessary".
In his speech today the Minister mentioned the need for hurry. I suppose the prospects of a June election made ministerial minds concentrate wonderfully, and the prospect of a 9th June election and Dissolution at the end of this week made them concentrate even more.
This Bill is an enabling Bill. Its two clauses give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations about the charging of higher fees and discretionary awards. Without seeing the regulations one is in the dark about the Government's intentions, as the questions asked by the Opposition parties at Second Reading made quite clear. What the Opposition was able to do, when the date of the election was announced, was to get

639
some concessions out of the Government on the understanding that it would let the Bill be pushed through before the end of this week and receive Royal Assent on Friday. The concessions were that the Government would produce the draft regulations by 10th May, and that there should be exemptions from full-cost fees for certain categories of students. The Minister has explained these categories—refugees and their children, and immigrants from their date of settlement. The position of those working outside the United Kingdom and the EEC is also safeguarded; these people and their children will become excepted students. These categories were all raised at Second Reading by the Opposition. We do not know what the Government would have done without the pressure, but it is certainly good to know that the commitment has been made by the Minister. A great many people will feel much happier as a result and will feel that they have been treated more fairly.
Thinking of the speed with which these regulations were drafted, it is even more incomprehensible that the earlier delays were so protracted. When we get excuses in future discussion on Bills that regulations cannot be prepared in a hurry, we shall have a precedent to bring forward. I have a question or two on the draft regulations. Regulations 8, 9 and 10 deal with charges for board and lodging. I understand there are wide discrepancies between local authorities in the charges they make, but I guess that these regulations will not have any effect on that. It would appear not, but it seems an area that needs looking at, and I hope the Minister might give some attention to this problem. I should like to know specifically why the list of excepted students in Schedule 3, which is attached to Regulation 10, does not include all the categories described in Schedule 2. I hope we can have an explanation of this.
As far as the Bill is concerned, Clause 1(2), which provides that the regulations may provide for exceptions, is there not only to grant such exemptions as I have already described—for example, for refugees—but in case a more generous policy were to be followed in the future and students from Cyprus, for instance, were, like members of the EEC, to be treated as home students. Am I right about that? I regret that under Clause 1(5) the regulations are subject only to the negative procedure, which gives little opportunity to Parliament to discuss or to make changes.
One question on retrospection: I am not clear whether students who started on courses in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and were paying full-cost fees will be entitled to a refund of fees if they qualify under the December ruling, and, if they were eligible, to awards. What of those applications for awards that have been pending on the files of local authorities since the end of last year? If the applications were made while the Scarman ruling was law, before the Bill is passed, what is their position?
I have one further question. If once classified as a home student, will that student remain so for the rest of the course, or could his status be changed? It would be helpful if these matters were cleared up because the situation was not at all clear from the Committee stage or Second Reading in the other place.
640
I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that there would be full consultation on the draft regulations with the local authority associations, the unions involved and with student and welfare organisations. But I should like to ask the Minister to repeat an assurance that was given by Mr. Waldegrave as, I believe, a part of the package deal for this Bill becoming an Act this week, that if returned the Government would lay the regulations before Parliament during the first week of July.
As I said earlier, we support the Bill with its draft regulations, but I must end by saying that we are not yet satisfied at all about the overseas student policy of the Government. The statement in February went only a very small way towards improving matters. The new money involved was only £25 million over a three-year period. We have had no response as yet to the Overseas Students Trust proposal that institutions should be free to charge marginal cost fees if they so wish—a proposal the Secretary of State said he found attractive.
The Government have made a slight move forward and the concessions in the draft regulations are further little steps in the right direction, but there is room for further and bigger strides and I hope that after 9th June we shall be in charge and able to take them.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the whole of the reason for this Bill and the fact that it had to be produced at all stems from dilatoriness on the part of the Government and, before that, from a very bad basic policy, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. We can be pleased and relieved that it is ending in a helpful way with a Bill produced with the maximum of good grace, as one would expect from Mr. Waldegrave.
The Bill as it stands is acceptable if we leave aside the fact that it is an enabling Bill and that it is dependent for its implementation on regulations which are subject to the negative procedure. I think that is usually a bad thing under most legislation unless the regulations are likely not to be of great importance. In this case, where we have regulations which are always matters of public interest and public debate, it is a great pity that they are subject to the negative procedure. The excuse which the Minister produced this evening, that this was absolutely necessary because of the necessity of passing regulations when the House is not sitting, does not stand up to very much examination.
I do not intend to ask any questions about the draft regulations that have been hurried out, for the simple reason that I have not had time to master them. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady David, for having managed to get that far. I will listen to the explanations given but, although we are aware of the necessity caused by the general election, nevertheless this is not a good way of passing important legislation. The fact that we have not been able to challenge or table amendments to the Bill is something which we on this side of the House very much regret.
One of the outstanding failures of the Government in their policy towards education has been their failure to realise the immense amount of good that can be

641
done by the hospitality that this country has in the past given, and could give in the future, to students from abroad. It does not cost us all that much because, in the main, its costs are merely the marginal costs. The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the proposals put forward that that should be the case and that the Government should be considering it. Certainly they should be considering it as an important matter.
We are a country whose influence and power is declining and no matter what the result of this election, the next election or the election after that, the chances are that it will go on, comparatively, declining in the world. We have certain immense advantages and certain capital which we have built up over a period of time which we can count on and which can breed for us friendship, trade and influence. Included in this capital is our educational system, our language and the fact that as a result of it we are able to be hosts to students from all over the world. They go back to their countries with, we hope, a debt of gratitude and sometimes, more often than not, happy remembrances of what has happened in this country and what they have gained from it.
The Government went out of their way to sabotage the whole of this by their policy in a short-term, mean, pennypinching way. I am delighted that the Government have thought better of some of their approach. I do not think that the Bill by any means goes far enough. I do not think it will undo a great deal of the harm and that it has caused in many parts of the globe, including many parts of the Commonwealth, but I am delighted that the Bill goes some little way towards remedying the harm that has been done.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, although I did not put my name down to speak on this Second Reading, having listened to the noble Earl who opened, to my noble friend Lady David and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there are just one or two things that I should like to take this opportunity of saying.
During the past three years it has been part of my responsibility to advise students in a Commonwealth country as to where they should pursue their further studies. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady David that the Bill does remove a slight, minuscule, amount of the damage that has been done by the Government's policy towards overseas students. Indeed, that minute amount of progress made in the Bill has largely been made as a result of the bargain struck with the Opposition.
I should like the noble Earl who is presenting this Bill, when replying to the Second Reading debate, to tell us whether this represents any change and any future new intentions on the part of the party which he represents, towards the opportunities that are to be given to overseas students in this country. The reason why I ask this is that I have been in the embarrassing position of wanting to suggest to students, particularly university students and teaching students, that they should obtain their higher training in institutions in this country. I have been unable to do so because the countries involved have simply been unable to afford the fees, in contrast to the fees which are charged elsewhere. For example, just last year I had to agree to
642
a student of mine going to an American university, when I am quite sure that he would have benefited to a much greater degree, and that his country would have benefited to a much greater degree, if he had been able to obtain the fees to attend a university in this country.
I should like to paraphrase to the noble Earl the words of one of his noble friends behind him when speaking on the Brandt Commission debate. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, then pointed out that one of the policies that this country could follow in order to prevent what we were then debating—namely, the infiltration and the influence of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc—was to encourage students to come to this country. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want to avoid infiltration of the ideas of the Soviet Union or any of the other communist bloc countries, and if they want to prevent the infiltration of those ideas into Commonwealth countries and third world countries, then they must be prepared to recognise that they must make it possible for those countries to send their students—as they have done traditionally—to this country.
If they do not do so, they are actively encouraging those countries to take the cheaper way of sending their students to communist countries, to the United States of America or to other countries where the fees are drastically less. In the general case of the United States, I have found the fees to be just about half what they are in this country. It seems to me that when we are debating a Second Reading of a new education Bill, it is incumbent upon the Government to state where they stand on this issue. Their own supporters have criticised them on this; we have criticised them. They have been criticised in the educational press, in the educational institutions, and by many noble Lords in this House with long experience of academic life.
Therefore, I should like to make a plea to the noble Earl who is to reply to this Second Reading debate to tell us—and to tell us openly and honestly—whether the Conservative Party and the Government which he represents have changed their minds about the importance of making it financially possible for a growing number of overseas students to come to the institutions in this country, or will they continue to charge those increased fees which they have been charging since they were elected as a Government, and thus keep out of the country many of our potential friends of the next generation who could be trained, and who in the past have been trained, in the educational institutions of Britain?
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was talking to a noble Lord. I think the day before yesterday, who told me that the feeling in the House was rather like an end of term, with everybody taking their exams; they feel that they want to go home but they are not allowed to. Today I felt rather as though I had gone in for my report on my Government's record in education in front of the headmistress and one or two of her other staff, and been told, like everyone from school who goes for their report, that I could have done a lot better.

643
I think that both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made much about why the Government and Ministers were not prepared when the decision was taken in your Lordships' House on 16th December last. I can give two reasons for that. One is that the case for ordinary residence has for many years been considered to be the one that could govern the situation; and, secondly, thank goodness! that in this country we have a split between the legislature and the judicature. I think that decisions taken in the courts often surprise people, and it is not a bad thing if sometimes they surprise Ministers and Governments.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness then went on to say that there was a delay which resulted in all this having to be rushed through at the moment, with all the election fever, and so on, that now exists. I would deny that there has been very much of a delay. After all, the judgment was delivered in your Lordships' House only on 16th December last, and that in itself is something of a date because that was just over a week before Christmas; then we were into the New Year, and even civil servants like a bit of a holiday at that time of year. That probably took us into January.
Naturally, it took some time fully to evaluate these wide-ranging implications. The judgment itself was concerned with mandatory awards, and amending regulations concerning such awards came into effect at the end of March. It took us a little longer to consider the implications in relation to fees and discretionary awards and it is not always easy to find legislative time, either here or in another place. Despite this, a Bill was introduced in another place on 21st April. We should all have liked to be able to move faster but I really do not think that a period of four months for the consideration of such an important matter in any way constitutes an unpardonable delay.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, the Government had four and a half months in which to consider it. We are being left with a whole 10 days or so between the First Reading in another place and the Bill being passed here.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes, I take the noble Baroness's point, but these are somewhat unusual circumstances. The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer most, if not all, of them. She asked me what effect draft Regulation 8 would have on the widely varying charges made for residence by local authorities. This regulation does not authorise the continuation of the present practice of higher residence charges to overseas students, except in the very limited case of those colleges which provide the mandatory award student with free board and lodging in lieu of an element in his grant.
This differential arose because local education authorities did not wish to extend to overseas students—and, indeed, to all students from outside England and Wales—the element of subsidy in residence charges to home students, which occurs because those charges are not expected to include various overhead items of "college-borne expenditure", such as external building maintenance
644
or debt charges. It is this element that has led to the wide variations in residence charges to overseas students. The regulations that we propose will not allow the practice to continue. Therefore, I can say that although local authorities will still obviously have various differing charges at establishments of further education, the overseas students will be in the same boat as our own students in regard to the fees they pay.
The noble Baroness then asked me why the list of excepted students in Schedule 3, which goes with Regulation 8, was not as all-embracing as in Schedule 2, which goes with Regulation 7. I am most grateful that the noble Baroness and her colleagues have very helpfully agreed to accelerate the passage of the Bill so that it may receive the Royal Assent before Dissolution. The Government are grateful, and many outside this House will also be glad, to have the present state of uncertainty resolved. To facilitate the Opposition's consideration of the Bill in the limited time available, we have produced, considerably faster than they would normally have seen the light of day outside the department, an early draft of part of the regulations to be made under the Bill. Inevitably they have been prepared in some haste, and Schedule 3 is, I am afraid, the result of that. I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that the list of excepted students for Regulation 8 will include the same list of excepted students as for Regulation 7. So that a slight mistake has been made has been due purely to the haste to get out the draft.
The noble Baroness then asked me two questions. She asked whether students who under the Scarman judgment would have been entitled to be looked on as home students and pay home fees in the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 would be able to claim refunds. The Government are taking no action in relation to the current academic year and earlier years, and legal liability in respect of fees must be determined without regard to the Bill. Circumstances will vary widely among students, institutions and authorities. Individual cases will have to be considered on their own facts. It should not be assumed that there is any general principle that imposes an obligation or a liability on authorities or institutions to refund any part of fees previously paid. Even where a student establishes entitlement to a mandatory award for 1982ߝ83, or any earlier year, he does not thereby establish entitlement either to a refund of fees paid for that year in excess of the then current home rate of fee, or to pay the home rate of fee in 1983ߝ84 and subsequent years. Whether the student should be expected to pay overseas fees still outstanding for the current academic year will depend on the circumstances of individual cases.
The noble Baroness asked me, what about students who applied for awards after December 1982? So far as mandatory awards are concerned—and these are not the subject of this Bill—the regulations were amended with effect from 31st March, to minimise the number of students obtaining an uncovenanted and unintended benefit as a result of the December judgment. Students who were refused an award before that date can ask to have that decision reviewed, but overseas students whose applications are decided under the amended regulations will not be eligible for awards. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained in another place, it

645
would be wrong to let more awards be made than was unavoidable on a basis which was contrary to long-established policy on access to mandatory awards. Those who fail to obtain awards as a result of the amending regulations have not been hard done by. Until the December judgment they had no expectation of obtaining an award. Those who obtained an award as a result of that decision should rather count themselves lucky to have received an unexpected bonus.
So far as discretionary awards are concerned, until regulations under this Bill come into effect, local authorities and other award-making bodies must operate under the law as it stands in relation to any awards which they bestow in that period. They might otherwise render themselves open to accusations of unlawful discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 for acting outside the scope of the cover provided by the existing arrangements approved under Section 41(2). It would not perhaps be very surprising if they felt inhibited by this, and they might, for example, feel obliged to delay decisions on awards, which would cause inconvenience to students and others. But this is a matter for them. Once regulations under the Bill come into effect, local authorities will be free to return to their previous practices when deciding to whom they wish to give discretionary awards.
The noble Baroness then asked me about students from Cyprus and whether under the provisions of Clause 1(2) relating to exceptions, they might at some future date he treated as home students like those from the EEC. It would technically be possible for the subsection to be used in this way. But my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in his Statement in another place on 8th February, made clear that the Government's intent is to aid such students through the aid programme, not by conceding home fee status. The Government's proposals for this were contained in the document entitled, A Policy for Overseas Students, deposited in the Library in February. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that the Government want to encourage overseas students to come here, and they want to help them to do so for humanitarian and various other reasons, in both their interests and the interests of this country.
The additional programme of assistance announced by my right honourable friend in February in response to the work of the Overseas Students' Trust, worth up to an extra £20 million in a full year, will help us to
646
develop a carefully targeted programme of assistance, rather than the indiscriminate and uncontrolled subsidy we could no longer afford. I think that I have answered all the questions that have been raised during this Second Reading debate.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to mention one assurance which I sought but which he has not given. If the Government are returned, will the new regulations be laid by the first week in July? I understand that an assurance was given in another place.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords; I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Government will be returned, and I shall certainly give an assurance that it is our intention that regulations be made in the first week of July. To that end consultations will continue during the period of the election.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
7.16 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May): Bill read a third time, and passed.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to with amendments.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly on the Question that the Commons Amendments be now considered. It seems to me that it would have been quite impossible for your Lordships to have agreed that Question had it not been for the indefatigable work, far beyond the call of duty, which has been done far into the night, and indeed, to the best of my knowledge, right through the night, by those ladies and gentlemen who work in the Public Bill Office. They have worked all night to get this vast array of amendments ready for us. Sometimes we take a little too much for granted the work which is done for us in your Lordships' House, and it is right to place on record our gratitude to those people before we agree to this Question, to which we could not have agreed had it not been for the work which has been done on our behalf.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wish to be wholly associated with the words of the noble Lord.
Baroness David: My Lords, so do we, because I think that this is a monstrous task to have to ask anyone to undertake.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end, insert "or Part II of Schedule 8 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In order to afford your Lordships the maximum convenience in this matter, I propose to speak once only, on the first amendment, and then, if your Lordships agree, to move the remainder en bloc. It is now three months since this Bill passed from your Lordships' House to another place. During that time Members of the other place have devoted much time and energy to the discussion of your Lordships' proposals and, as is evident from the list before you, quite a number of amendments have been proposed.
Although with 133 amendments, the list may at first sight appear formidable, I can assure your Lordships that the majority of these are either necessary technical changes, or introduce minor refinements which I believe improve what we had already agreed was a welcome and useful Bill, and I should therefore be surprised if your Lordships found these changes objectionable.
648
Of the more significant changes, a number were introduced in response to suggestions put forward by your Lordships, but which time did not permit us to include before the Bill passed to another place. Perhaps the most important changes which have been made to the Bill since it left this House relate to legislation in the child care field. Your Lordships will remember our lengthy debate on the question of parental rights resolutions and access to children in care. I am pleased to say that the Government were able to bring forward amendments that we believe made significant improvements in both these areas.
I turn now to Clause 6 concerning the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. This was amended in Committee in another place to remove the requirement of central and local government to provide mandatory grants for the training of social workers. Your Lordships will recall that this requirement was inserted in the Bill in this House on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull but against the Government's advice. In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Minister for Health reiterated the arguments that I put to your Lordships. I shall therefore not detain your Lordships by repeating all the points previously made.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull argued that residential care was the area in which more training was most needed. My honourable friend the Minister was able to describe in another place a number of substantial developments, both current and potential, which, with Government assistance, are directed at more and better training for people working in residential care. My noble friend has discussed these with my colleague, another Parliamentary Secretary, at the DHSS, and I understand that she has acknowledged that these represent a significant contribution specifically directed at residential care.
Equally, we acknowledge my noble friend's point that training for the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work for which the proposed mandatory grants were intended is important for a proportion of people occupying key positions in the running of residential care establishments. We also acknowledge that an important group among those seeking CQSW training generally are the more mature post-graduate students. I am therefore glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the number of grants to be offered this year by the DHSS for such people shows a significant increase. Last year, some 716 new grants were taken up. This year, the number of grants that we shall offer shows an increase on this figure of more than 10 per cent. Ideally, we should like to be able to do far more to promote the training of those who work with vulnerable people; but I believe that in our current financial circumstances, the measures I have described represent a balanced package, preferable to an indiscriminate requirement to provide mandatory grants.
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that when we considered Clause 11 in Committee in December last year the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, successfully moved an amendment to remove the reference to "means" in the first subsection of the clause. I understand that she felt that the requirement on local authorities to have regard to the means of all those

649
charged for day and domiciliary services was a punitive provision that would prove unacceptable to those using such services. On that occasion, I resisted the amendment which I felt undermined the Government's intention to introduce consistency for the various powers under which local authorities may make charges and to protect those on low incomes. I still believe that the clause as it passed from your Lordships' House was unsatisfactory but the Government have accepted the force of the noble Lady's argument. We think that in Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, 109 to 111 and 122, incorporated in another place, we have provided a much improved clause which meets both the concern of the noble Lady and achieves what the Government want. It does not require a means test for all those who pay charges. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have provided a statutory formula for charging by local authorities for their day and domiciliary services which meets the concern expressed in this House last December about fairness. It was welcomed by Members on both sides in the other place when debated in Committee there.
Your Lordships will wish to know that the Government have reluctantly agreed that Clause 8 and the related Schedule 4 which conferred employing authority status on family practitioner committees should for the most part be left out of the Bill because of the controversial nature of the proposals. This accounts for Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, 58 to 64, 68 to 70, 74 and 75, 96, 97, 102, 103, 105 to 107, 119 to 121, 126 to 128 and 133.
Finally, I can perhaps mention that Amendments Nos. 79, 81, 84, 86 and 91 restore the position for nominating members of tribunals and ensure that the existing rights of nomination enjoyed by the TUC and the CBI are maintained. This was a matter of particular concern to noble Lords opposite and their right honourable and honourable friends in another place.
Those parts of the Bill to which I have not yet referred remain substantially unchanged. They include the provisions to promote community care in children's regional planning, the abolition of the teaching designation for health authorities, the fees for notification of infectious diseases and the abolition of a number of advisory bodies that have outlived their usefulness. These are all provisions that were broadly welcomed by your Lordships, who will be pleased to note that they are for the most part in the same form as when they passed for consideration in another place. I have not covered all the amendments on the list. I have already stated that the majority are of a minor or technical nature. I shall of course be happy to try and answer any detailed points that your Lordships may wish to raise.
I conclude by thanking noble Lords for their valiant efforts in framing the main structure of the Bill when it went through your Lordships' House originally. I thank noble Lords again for facilitating its rapid progress to the statute book tonight.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the Minister and speak not only to Amendment No. 1 but also to the other 132 amendments before us. This is no way for important legislation to be dealt with. A Bill that affects so many thousands of our people should have received more thought and more concern. In fact, I would have preferred that the Bill had been allowed to fall, so that whichever Government come into power next month could have begun again and looked at matters in detail.
This is an important Bill. We have stated at earlier stages that it covers too many disparate subjects and that it is too much of a portmanteau Bill. I remind your Lordships that it covers the question of access to children in care, the problem of secure accommodation for children in Scotland, the registration of residential and nursing homes, the constitution of family practitioner committees, the amendment of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the dental practitioners whose registration is suspended, charges for local authority services, social security adjudications and calculation of assets. All these are matters that were not properly resolved and that should have received further consideration.
I appreciate the difficulties of the situation. However, the fact that one received only today a copy of the amendments from the Commons in a rather variable presentation, some of it illegible, makes it difficult for us to deal with the various amendments. I should like to say with emphasis that I have every sympathy with the staff who have been hard pressed and who have been put in an impossible position in presenting 133 amendments that were only passed by the Commons last night. I do not blame the calligraphy of any of the staff or the mischievous misrepresentations of the photocopying machinery that appear from page to page. But this is a serious matter. There might be a risk of error when these things are put into legislation arising out of problems of typography and calligraphy. This is not the way in which Parliament should behave in dealing with laws that will affect so many of our people in so many ways.
I am not going to take a Trappist vow, but I am sure that the noble Minister will be glad to hear that I do not intend to speak again about the Bill. I believe that the House has been treated with such disrespect and the whole of this legislation so downgraded that it would be impossible and useless for us to try and make any further improvements tonight. It is with deep regret that I have to say these things. I appreciate the difficulties. Just because there has to be a cut and run election, we have the Bill thrust upon us in this incomplete and ill-thought-out way. It is especially discourteous to this House because the Bill started in this House. We spent a great deal of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will painfully remember, on trying to get the Bill right.
We have received 133 amendments back from another place and we are supposed just to roll it all up tonight. If the Bill is important it would have been better for it to have been left on one side for a new beginning. But because the Government prefer to rush it out of the way to suit their electoral ambitions, I can

651
only hope that we will be sitting on other sides of this noble House after 9th June and then we will be able to put right some of the things which are wrong in this Bill.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for dealing with this very complicated list of amendments so very expeditiously if, indeed, the noble Baroness actually did thank the noble Lord—I think she did so. However, if the noble Baroness did not do so, I certainly do.
I am bound to say that these are very complicated amendments. I could not honestly say that I understand them fully or even that I have made a very serious attempt as yet to understand them all fully. But I say straightaway that I have personally no wish at this stage to impede the further progress of this Bill. It does a number of things which are valuable and which perhaps ought to be done. Let me say in passing that I am a little sorry that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faith full, has gone, although I am glad to hear that the Government have gone some way towards meeting the points which the noble Baroness raised. I am also a little anxious about the disappearance of various matters to do with the new structure for the family practitioner committees. I think in part that there may well be difficulties which may arise later as a result of that.
But having said all that, I am bound to say that I must follow the example of the noble Lord and deal with all the amendments briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will recollect that when we were dealing with another matter for which he was responsible only a few minutes ago—the Dentists Bill—we reminded your Lordships' House that we get a Dentists Bill every 30 years. Few of us will still be here when the next Dentists Bill arrives. I would venture to suggest that there are one or two matters in this particular Bill which may have to be dealt with much sooner than in 30 years, and while I would not impede the progress of this Bill and do not wish to oppose any of these particular amendments, it is only right to say that there are those of us in your Lordships' House who may feel that we shall want to use what devices are open to us on another occasion perhaps to make further amendments by means of amending legislation of one kind or another should the need prove to be there when we have given the whole matter the degree of study which it deserves. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord for dealing with the whole matter as expeditiously as he has done and I shall try to do likewise myself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 2, line 40, after '1957' insert 'towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them'.
3 Clause 2, page 6, line 41, leave out '10 of the Mental Health Act 1959' and insert '116 of the Mental Health Act 1983'.
4 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
"Financial assistance to voluntary organisations in Scotland.
.—A. Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (financial assistance to voluntary organisations) shall cease to have effect with regard to Scotland and the following section shall be inserted in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 after section 16A—
"Financial assistance by the Secretary of State to voluntary organisations.
16B.—(1) The Secretary of State may, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine, give to a voluntary organisation to which this section applies assistance by way of grant or loan, or partly in the one way and partly in the other.
(2) This section applies to a voluntary organisation whose activites consist in or include the provision of a service similar to a relevant service, the promotion or publicising of a relevant service or a similar one or the giving of advice with respect to the manner in which a relevant service or a similar one can best be provided.
(3) In this section, 'relevant service' means a service which must or may, by virtue of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, be provided or the provision of which must or may, by virtue of that Act, be secured by the Secretary of State, or a service for the provision of which a Health Board is, by virtue of that Act, under a duty to make arrangements.".
5 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:—
Access to children in care—England and Wales.
B—The enactments specified in Schedule (Access to children in care) to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments there specified, being amendments concerning access to children in the care of local authorities and voluntary organisations.
6 After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:—
Access to children in care—Scotland.
C—(1) In section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (assumption of parental rights and powers), in subsection (5)—

(a) the words from "unless" to "resolution" where it third occurs shall he left out; and

(b) for the words "that person's whereabouts" there shall be substituted the words "the whereabouts of the person whose parental rights and powers have under the resolution vested in the local authority or in the voluntary organisation as the case may he".

(2) The following sections shall be inserted in the said Act of 1968 after section 17 of that Act—
Termination of access to child subject to resolution under section 16.
17A.—(1) A local authority or voluntary organization may not terminate arrangements for access to a child who is the subject of a resolution under section 16 of this Act by his parent or guardian or refuse to make such arrangements unless they have first given the parent or guardian notice of termination or refusal in a form prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) A notice under this section shall contain a statement that the parent or guardian has a right to apply to the sherriff for an order under section I 7B of this Act.
(3) A notice terminating access shall state that access will be terminated as from the date of service of the notice.
(4) A local authority or voluntary organisation are not to be taken to terminate arrangements for access for the purposes of this section in a case where they propose to substitute new arrangements for access for existing arrangements.
(5) A local authority or voluntary organisation are not to be taken to refuse to make arrangements for access for the purposes of this section in a case where they postpone access for such reasonable period as appears to them to be necessary to enable them to consider what arrangements for access (if any) are to be made.
(6) A notice under this section may be served on a parent or guardian either by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post.
(7) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, the proper address of a person shall he his last known address.
Access Orders.
17B.—(1) A parent or guardian on whom a notice under section 17A of this Act is served may apply by way of summary application to the sheriff (in the case of a local authority, the sheriff having jurisdiction in their area) for an order under this section (hereinafter referred to as an 'access order').
(2) An access order shall be an order requiring the authority or organisation to allow the child's parent or guardian access to the child subject to such conditions as the order may specify with regard to commencement, frequency, duration or place of access or to any other matter for which it appears to the sheriff that provision ought to be made in connection with the requirement to allow access.
(3) Where an access order has been made—

(a) the parent or guardian named in the order; or

(b) the local authority or voluntary organisation may apply by way of summary application to the sheriff for the variation or discharge of the order.

Emergency order.
17C.—(1) The sheriff may make an order under this subsection where he is satisfied that continued access to a child by his parent or guardian in accordance with the terms of an access order will put the child's welfare seriously at risk.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be an order suspending the operation of the access order for 7 days beginning with the date of the order under subsection (1) of this section, or for such shorter period beginning with that date as may be specified in that order.
(3) If during the period for which the operation of the access order is suspended the local authority or voluntary organisation make an application for its variation or discharge to the sheriff, its operation shall be suspended until the date on which the application to vary or discharge it is determined or abandoned.
Safeguarding of interest of child.
17D.—A court to which an application for an access order or any other application under section 17B or 17C of this Act or any appeal relating thereto is made shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration in determining the matter.
Code of practice.
17E.—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice with regard to access to children who are in care or who are subject to a supervision requirement under section 44 of this Act.
(2) Before preparing the code or making any alteration in it the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of the code and of any alteration in the code before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the code or any alteration in it to be withdrawn the Secretary of State shall withdraw the code or alteration and, where he withdraws the code, shall prepare a code in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(4) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (3) above in respect of a code or alteration after the expiration of the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy of the code or alteration was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the code as for the time being in force.".
(3) In section 18A of the Act (safeguarding of interests of child), in subsection (1), after the words "16A(3)" there shall be inserted the words ", 17B. 17C".
7 After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
Secure accommodation for children in Scotland
D.—(1) In section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (requisite conditions for compulsory measures of care for children), in subsection (2) there shall be inserted at the end—
"(i) he is in the care of a local authority and his behaviour is such that special measures are needed for his adequate care and control.".
(2) In section 59A of the said Act of 1968 (grants in respect of secure accommodation for children), subsection (3) shall be left out.
(3) In section 60 of that Act (control of residential establishments), in subsection (1)—
(a) after paragraph (b) there shall he inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) for the granting of approval by the Secretary of State for the provision and use of accommodation in residential establishments as secure accommodation:"
(b) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(ee) for prescribing the minimum age below which a child's liberty shall not be restricted in secure accommodation except with the Secretary of State's consent;"
(c) after paragraph (f), after the words "classes of establishments" there shall be inserted the words ", different classes of accommodation in residential and other establishments".
(4) After section 58 of that Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
"Residence in secure accommodation.
58A.—(1) A child who is made subject to a supervision requirement under this Act may not be placed or kept in secure accommodation, except under the provisions of this Act.
(2) In this Act, "secure accommodation" means accommodation provided in a residential establishment in accordance with regulations made under section 60(1) of this Act for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.
(3) Where a children's hearing decide, in accordance with section 44 of this Act, that a child is in need of compulsory measures of care, and they are satisfied that either—
(a) he has a history of absconding, and—

(i) he is likely to abscond unless he is kept in secure accommodation; and

(ii) if he absconds, it is likely that his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk; or

(b) he is likely to injure himself or other persons unless he is kept in secure accommodation.
they may make it a condition of a supervision requirement under subsection (1)(b) of the said section 44 that the child shall be liable to be placed and kept in secure accommodation in the named residential establishment at such times as the person in charge of that establishment, with the agreement of the director of social work of the local authority required to give effect to the supervision requirement, considers it necessary that he do so.
(4) The Secretary of State shall have power by regulation to make provision with respect to the placing in secure accommodation of any child—

(a) who is subject to a supervision requirement imposed under section 44 of this Act but not subject to a condition imposed under subsection (3) of this section; or

(b) who is not subject to such a supervision requirement but who is being cared for by a local authority or voluntary organisation in pursuance of such enactments as may be specified in the regulations,

and such regulations shall specify the circumstances which require to pertain before a child may be so placed under regulations made under this subsection and may specify different circumstances for different cases or classes of case.
Time limits on keeping without reference to children's hearing.
58B.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe—

(a) the maximum period during which a child may be kept under this Act in secure accommodation without the authority of a children's hearing or of the sheriff;

655

(b) the period within which the case of a child placed under this Act in secure accommodation shall be referred to the reporter and different periods may be prescribed in respect of different cases or classes of case.

(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision to enable a child who has been placed in secure accommodation under section 58(A)(4) of this Act or his parent to require that the child's case be brought before a children's hearing within a shorter period than would otherwise apply under regulations made under subsection (1)(a) of this section.
(3) Where, in any case, a children's hearing direct the reporter to make application to the sheriff for a finding under section 42(2)(c) of this Act (finding that grounds for referral are established), they shall have power, if they are satisfied with regard to the criteria specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 58A(3) of this Act, to authorise the detention or, as the case may be, further detention of the child in secure accommodation in a named residential establishment, pending the determination of the case in accordance with section 42(5) or (6) of this Act.
Review of secure accommodation & condition.
58C.—(1) A condition imposed under section 58A(3) of this Act, requiring a child to reside in secure accommodation, shall he subject to review by a children's hearing at such time as the local authority recommends and otherwise at such times and in accordance with such provisions as the Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe.
(2) A condition to which this section applies shall he reviewed when the supervision requirement is being reviewed, and may be reviewed separately from that review.
(3) A condition to which this section applies shall cease to have effect at the expiry of the period of three months after it was made, unless it has been reviewed and the condition has been ordered to continue.
(4) A condition which is continued on review shall cease to have effect at the expiry of the period of—

(a) nine months after it is first reviewed;

(b) twelve months after the second or any subsequent review,

unless it has been reviewed and the condition has been ordered to continue.
(5) Sections 44 and 48(5) of this Act shall apply to the review of conditions made under section 58A(3) of this Act as they apply to the review of supervision requirements.
(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time make regulations to vary the periods specified in this section.
Sheriff's power to direct condition to cease to have effect.
58D. Where under section 49(5) of this Act (appeal against decision of children's hearing) the sheriff is satisfied in a case in which there is in force a condition under section 58A(3) of this Act that the decision of the children's hearing is not justified in all the circumstances of the case he shall direct that the condition shall cease to have effect.
Warrants to detain in secure sccommodation.
58E.—(1) Where the sheriff or a children's hearing issues a warrant under any of sections 37, 40 and 42 of this Act (detention in a place of safety), he or they may, if satisfied with regard to the criteria specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 58A(3) of this Act, authorise the detention or, as the case may be, further detention of the child in secure accommodation in a named residential establishment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State may make regulations amending, varying or disapplying any of the criteria specified in the said paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 58A(3) of this Act except in relation to a warrant under section 37 of this Act.
Procedures for placing in secure accommodation.
58F.—(l) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedures to be applied in the placing of children in secure accommodation, and
656
without prejudice to the foregoing generality may make provision for the referral of cases to a children's hearing for review.
(2) Regulations under this section may specify the duties of the reporter in relation to the placing of children in secure accommodation.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the parent of a child being informed of the placing of the child in secure accommodation.
Transitional provisions.
58G. Regulation made under sections 58A to 58F of this Act mar include such transitional provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary, including provisions varying the application of any provision in those sections for a transitional period, either generally, or in relation to specified classes of cases.
8 Clause 6, page 11 line 1, leave out subsection (8).
9 Clause 8, page 12, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
10 Page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
11 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:—
Dental practitioners whose registration is suspended—England and Wales.
E—In the National Health Service Act 1977—
(a) the following subsections shall be added at the end of section 35 (arrangements for general dental services)—

"(3) Where the registration of a dental practitioner in the dentists register is suspended—

(a) by an order under Part II of the Dentists Act 1983 (interim suspension); or

(b) by a direction or order under Part III of that Act (health cases).

the suspension shall not terminate any arrangements made with him for the provision of general dental services, but he shall not provide such services in person during the suspension.

(4) Regulations may provide for the making of payments in consequence of suspension to a dental practitioner whose registration is so suspended."; and

(b) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 10(2) of' Schedule 5—
"(2A) Where the registration of a dental practitioner in the dentists register is suspended—

(a) by an order under Part II of the Dentists Act 1983 (interim suspension); or

(b) by a direction or order under Part III of that Act (health cases).

the suspension shall not terminate any contract of employment made between him and an authority but a person whose registration is suspended under that Part of that Act shall not perform any duties under a contract made between him and an authority which involve the practice of dentistry within the meaning of section 33(1) of the Dentists Act 1957."
12 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:—
"Dental practitioners whose registration is suspended—Scotland
F—In the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978—
(a) the following subsections shall be added at the end of section 25 (arrangements for general dental services)—

'(4) Where the registration of a dental practitioner in the dentists register is suspended—

(a) by an order under Part II of the Dentists Act 1983 (interim suspension); or

(b) by a direction or order under Part Ill of that Act (health cases),

the suspension shall not terminate any arrangements made with him for the provision of general dental services, but he shall not provirde such services in person during the suspension.

(5) Regulations may provide for the making of payments in consequence of suspension to a dental practitioner whose registration is so suspended.";

and

657
(b) the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6 of Schedule 1—
"(6A) Notwithstanding paragraph 7 of this Schedule, where the registration of a dental practitioner in the dentists register suspended—

(a) by an order under Part II of the Dentists Act 1983 (interim suspension); or

(b) by a direction or order under Part III of that Act (health cases),

the suspension shall not terminate any contract of employment made between him and a Health Board but a person whose registration is suspended under that Part of that Act shall not perform any duties under a contract made between him and a Health Board which involve the practice of dentistry within the meaning of section 33(1) of the Dentists Act 1957."
13 Leave out Clause 11.
14 After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause:
"Charges for local authority services in England and Wales.
G.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, an authority providing a service to which this section applies may recover such charge (if any) for it as they consider reasonable.
(2) This section applies to service provided under the following enactments—

(a) section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons etc.);

(b) section 45(1) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (welfare of old people);

(c) Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (care of mothers and young children, prevention of illness and care and after-care and home help and laundry facilities);

(d) section 8 of the Residential Homes Act 1980 (meals and recreation for old people); and

(e) paragraph I of Part 11 of Schedule 8 to this Act.

(3) If a person—

(a) avails himself of a service to which this section applies; and

(b) satisfies the authority providing the service that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to pay for the service the amount which he would otherwise be obliged to pay for it,

the authority shall not require him to pay more for it than it appears to them that it is reasonably practicable for him to pay.
(4) Any charge under this section may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recovered summarily as a civil debt".
15 After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
"Charges for local authority services in Scotland.
H. In section 87 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (charges for services and accommodation) there shall be substituted for subsection (1) the following subsections:—

'(1) Subject to sections 78 and 78A of this Act (contributions in respect of maintainable children) and to the following provisions of this section, a local authority providing a service under this Act may recover such charge (if any) for it as they consider reasonable.

(1A) If a person—

(a) avails himself of a service provided under this Act; and

(b) satisfies the authority providing the service that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to pay for the service the amount which he would otherwise be obliged to pay for it,

the authority shall not require him to pay more for it than it appears to them that it is reasonably practicable for him to pay.".'.

16 Clause 12, page 16, line 27, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) In section 78 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (duty to make contributions in respect of children in care)—
658

(a) in subsection (1) the words "and it is engaged in remunerative employment" shall be omitted; and

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) No contributions shall be payable under subsection (1)(a) of this section by a contributor during a period when he is in receipt of—

(a) benefits under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976; or

(b) a family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970."

(7) After section 78 of the said Act of 1968 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Recovery of contributions.

78A.—(1) Section 87 of this Act (charges for services and accommodation) shall not apply to the provision of services (including accommodation) under this Act in respect of maintainable children, and the provisions of this section shall apply thereto.

(2) A local authority providing such services may recover from a contributor a contribution (if any) of such amount as is reasonable and, subject to that, may recover—

(a) a standard contribution determined by them in respect of maintainable children who are in their care or under their supervision; or

(b) such other contribution as they consider reasonable in the circumstances.".'.

17 Clause 15, page 18, line 28, leave out 'an' and insert 'a beneficial'.
18 line 29, leave out from first 'the' to 'on' in line 30 and insert 'local authority may create a charge in their favour'.
19 line 32, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'this section'.
20 line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) Any interest in the proceeds of sale of land held upon trust for sale is to be treated, subject to subsection (4) below, as an interest in land for the purposes of this section.

(2B) Subject to subsection (2C) below, a charge under this section shall be in respect of any amount assessed as due to be paid which is outstanding from time to time.

(2C) The charge on the interest of a joint tenant in the proceeds of sale of land held upon trust for sale shall be in respect of an amount not exceeding the value of the interest that he would enjoy in those proceeds if the joint tenancy were severed, but the creation of such a charge shall not sever the joint tenancy.

(2D) On the death of a joint tenant in the proceeds of sale of land held upon trust for sale whose interest in the proceeds is subject to a charge under this section—

(a) if there are surviving joint tenants, their interests in the proceeds; and

(b) if the land vests in one person, or one person is entitled to have it vested in him, his interest in it, shall become subject to a charge for an amount not exceeding the amount of the charge to which the interest of the deceased joint tenant was subject by virtue of subsection (2C) above.

(2E) A charge under this section shall be created by a declaration in writing made by the local authority'.

21 line 35, leave out subsection (3).
22 line 38, after 'charge', insert,' other than a charge on an interest in the proceeds of sale of land'.
23 Clause 21, page 22, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) There shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work or of Registered Homes Tribunals; and

659

(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act'.

24 line 9, leave out 'section 1 above' and insert 'this Act'.
25 Clause 26, page 23, line 38, after '(2)', insert 'Except where the contrary intention appears.'
26 Before Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule:
Section (Access to Children in Care—England and Wales).
'ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CARE

PART I ADDITION OF PART IA TO CHILD CARE ACT 1980
1. The following shall be inserted after section 12 of the Child Care Act 1980—

PART IA ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CARE
Children to whom Part IA applies.

12A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, this Part of this Act applies to any child in the care of a local authority in consequence—

(a) of a care order (including an interim order);

(b) of an order under section 2(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960;

(c) of committal under section 23(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

(d) of an order under section 2(2)(b) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(e) of an order under section 17(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975 or section 26(1)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976 order on refusal of adoption order);

(f) or an order under section 36(2) or (3)(a) of the Children Act 1975 (order on revocation of custodianship order);

(g) of an order under section 10(1) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978; or

(h) of a resolution under section 3 above.

(2) This Part of this Act does not apply to a child in the care of a local authority in consequence of an order made by the High Court.

Termination of access.

12B.—(1) A local authority may not terminate arrangements for access to a child to whom this Part of this Act applies by its parent, guardian or custodian, or refuse to make such arrangements unless they have first given the parent, guardian or custodian notice of termination or refusal in a form prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.

(2) A notice under this section shall contain a statement that the parent, guardian or custodian has a right to apply to a court for an order under section 12C below.

(3) A notice terminating access shall state that access will be terminated as from the date of service of the notice.

(4) A local authority are not to be taken to terminate access for the purposes of this section in a case where they propose to substitute new arrangements for access for existing arrangements.

(5) A local authority are not to be taken to refuse to make arrangements for access for the purposes of this section in a case where they postpone access for such reasonable period as appears to them to be necessary to enable them to consider what arrangements for access (if any) are to be made.

(6) A notice under this section may be served on a parent, guardian or custodian either by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it by post.

(7) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, the proper address of a person shall be his last known address.

PART II OTHER AMENDMENTS
2. The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 64 of the Child Care Act 1980—
"(8) Part IA of this Act applies to a child in respect of whom a resolution under subsection (1) above is in force as it applies to a child such as is mentioned in section 12A above, and accordingly references to a local authority in that Part of this Act include references to a voluntary organisation in which the parental rights and duties with respect to a child have vested under such a resolution.".
3. The following paragraph shall be added at the end of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid Act 1974—
"9. Proceedings under Part IA of the Child Care Act 1980.".
4. The following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end of section 103(1)(a) of the Children Act 1975—
"(iv) section 12F of the Child Care Act 1980;".'.
27 Schedule 1, page 25, line 11, at end, insert—
'Children Act 1958 (c. 65)

Termination of access to child subject to resolution under section 16.

1A. In section 7 of the Children Act 1958 (removal of foster children kept in unsuitable surroundings) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection.

"(4) A local authority may receive into their care under section fifteen of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children, etc). any child removed under this section, whether or not the circumstances of the child are such that they fall within paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of the said section 15 and notwithstanding that he may appear to the local authority to be over the age of seventeen.".'.

28 page 25, line 28, at end, insert—
'3A. In section 20 of that Act (duty of local authority to further the best interests of a child in their care)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words ", the local authority" there shall be substituted the words "or of a voluntary organization, they";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "a local authority" there shall be substituted the word "they", and after the words "the local authority", there shall be inserted the words "or voluntary organisation"; and

(c) in subsection (3), after the word "authority", there shall be inserted the words "or voluntary organisation", and for the words "section 17(3)" there be substituted the words "sections 17(3), 17)3A)".'.

29 page 26, line 14, at end, insert—
'Family Law Reform Act 1969 (c. 46)
6A. In section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (wards of court committed to care of local authority) for the words from "and thereupon" to the end of the subsection there shall he substituted the words "and thereupon—
662

(a) Part III of the Child Care Act 1980 (which relates to the treatment of children in the care of a local authority; and

(b) for the purposes only of contributions by the child himself at a time when he has attained the age of 16, Part V of that Act (which relates to contributions towards the maintenance of children in the care of a local authority),

shall apply, subject to the next following subsection, as if the child had been received by the local authority into their care under section 2 of that Act".'.
30 page 28, line 12, at each, insert—
'Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18)
16A. In section 43(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (children committed to care of local authority) for the words from "and thereupon" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "and thereupon—

(a) Part III of the Child Care Act 1980 (which relates to the treatment of children in the care of a local authority); and

(b) for the purposes only of contributions by the child himself at a time when he has attained the age of 16, Part V of that Act (which relates to contributions towards the maintenance of children in the care of a local authority).

shall apply, subject to the provisions of this section, as if the child had been received by the local authority into their care under section 2 of that Act".'.
31 page 29, line 20, at end, insert—
'23A.—In Section 103 of that Act (guardians ad litem etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "a panel" there shall be substituted the words "one or more panels"; and

(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—

"(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide—

(a) for the defrayment by local authorities of expenses incurred by members of a panel established by virtue of that subsection; and

(b) for the payment by local authorities of fees and allowances for members of such a penal.".'.

32 page 31, line 27, at end, insert—
'40A. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980 (under which a local authority who pass a resolution under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) are required, if the whereabouts of the person whose parental rights and duties have vested in them are known, to serve notice in writing of the passing of the resolution on him, unless he has consented in writing to its passing)—
"(2) If the local authority know the whereabouts of the person whose parental rights and duties have vested in them by virtue of a resolution passed under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) above, they shall forthwith after it is passed serve notice in writing of its passing on him.".'.
33 page 31, line 29, leave out 'the Child Care Act 1980' and insert 'that Act'.
34 page 32, line 10, at end, insert—
43A. The following section shall be substituted for section 21A of that Act—
"Use of accommodation for restricting liberty.
21A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a child in the care of a local authority may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless it appears—
(a) that—

(i) he has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation; and

(ii) if he absconds, it is likely that his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk; or

663

(b) that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) specify—

(i) a maximum period beyond which a child may not be kept in such accommodation without the authority of a juvenile court; and

(ii) a maximum period for which a juvenile court may authorise a child to be kept in such accommodation;

(b) empower a juvenile court from time to time to authorise a child to be kept in such accommodation for such further period as the regulations may specify; and
(c) provide that applications to a juvenile court under this section shall be made by local authorities.
(3) It shall be the duty of a juvenile court before which a child is brought by virtue of this section to determine whether any relevant criteria for keeping a child in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty are satisfied in his case; and if a court determines that any such criteria are satisfied, it shall make an order authorising the child to be kept in such accommodation and specifying the maximum period for which he may be so kept.
(4) On any adjournment of a hearing under subsection (3) above a juvenile court may make an interim order permitting the child to be kept during the period of the adjournment in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty.
(5) An appeal shall lie to the Crown Court from a decision of a juvenile court under this section.
(6) A juvenile court shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child who is not legally represented in that court unless either—

(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or

(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) that this section shall or shall not apply to any description of children specified in the regulations;

(b) that this section shall have effect in relation to children of a description specified in the regulations subject to such modifications as may be so specified;

(c) that such other provision as may be so specified shall have effect for the purpose of determining whether a child of a description specified in the regulations may be placed or kept in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty.

(8) The giving of an authorisation under this section shall not prejudice any power of any court in England and Wales or Scotland to give directions relating to the child to whom the authorisation relates.".'.
35 page 32, line 45, at end, insert—
47A.—The following section shall be inserted after section 64 of that Act:—
"General duty of voluntary organisation in relation to children in their care.
64A.—(1) In reaching any decision relating to a child in their care, a voluntary organisation shall give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood; and shall so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them, having regard to his age and understanding.
(2) In providing for a child in their care a voluntary organisation shall make such use of facilities and services available for children in the care of their own parents as appears to the organisation reasonable in his case.".'.
36 page 33, line 15, leave out '(2) of that Act (regulations and orders)' and insert 'of that Act (regulations and orders)—
(a) in subsection (2)'.
37 page 33, line 17, at end, insert 'and (b) in subsection (4), after "11" there shall be inserted, "21A".'.
38 Schedule 3, page 37, line 3, after 'disablement', insert', past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs'.
39 page 37, line 22, leave out '147(1) of the Mental Health Act 1959' and insert '145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983'.
40 page 38, line 15, after 'mind', insert '(whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence)'.
41 page 38, line 17, leave out 'and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment'.
42 page 40, line 24, leave out '£2' and insert '£5'.
43 page 44, line 38, at end, insert—

'(aa) as to the numbers and qualifications of staff to be employed in such homes;

(ab) as to the numbers of suitably qualified and competent staff to be on duty in such homes;'.

44 page 44, line 41, at end, insert—

'(ca) as to the giving of notice y a person of a description specified in the regulations of periods during which any person of a description so specified proposes to be absent from a home;

(cb) as to the information to be supplied in such a notice:'

45 page 46, line 37, at end, insert—
'23A. In section 1 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975—
(a) the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—
"(v) treatment by specially controlled techniques.";
(b) the following subsection shall be added after that subsection—
"(1A) In subsection (1) above 'specially controlled techniques' means techniques specified under subsection (3) below as subject to control for the purposes of this Act.";
(c) at the end of paragraph (e) of subsection (2) there shall be added (but not as part of sub-paragraph (iii)) the words "unless they are used or intended to be used for the provision of treatment by specially controlled techniques and are not excepted by regulations under paragraph (g) below"; and
(d) the following subsections shall be added after that subsection—
"(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify as subject to control for the purposes of this Act any technique of medicine or surgery (including cosmetic surgery) as to which he is satisfied that its use may create a hazard for persons treated by means of it or for the staff of any premises where the technique is used.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of section 19 below regulations under subsection (3) may define a technique by reference to any criteria which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) In this section 'treatment' includes diagnosis and 'treated' shall be construed accordingly.".'.
46 page 46, line 39, leave out 'the Nursing Homes Act 1975' and insert 'that Act'.
47 page 47, line 22, at end, insert—
'25A. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after section 5(1)(a) of that Act—

'(aa) make provision as to the giving of notice by a person registered in respect of such a home of periods during which he or, if he is not in charge of the home,

665
the person who is in charge of it, proposes to be absent from the home;

(ab) specify the information to be supplied in such a notice;

(ac) provide for the making of adequate arrangements for the running of such a home during a period when the person in charge of it is absent from it;'.

48 page 47, line 42, at end, insert—
'(2) In subection (3) of that section, for the words "imposed by or under subsection (1) or (2) above" there shall be substituted the words "for the time being in force in respect of a home by vitrue of this Act.".'.
49 page 51, line 23, after '32.', insert '(1)'.
50 page 51, line 28, at end, insert—
'(2) "£5" shall be substituted for "£2" in subsection (1)(b).
51 page 52, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert 'contravention—

(a) of subsection (1) above; or

(b) of a condition to which the registration of the home is for the time being subject by virtue of this Part of this Act,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding—

(i) level 5 on the standard scale, if his offence is under paragraph (a) above; and

(ii) level 4 on that scale, if it is under paragraph (b) above.";'.

52 page 55, line 42, at end, insert—
'38A. In section 60(1)(a) of that Act after the word "accommodation" there shall be inserted the word ", staff".'
53 page 56, line 4, at end, insert—
'39A. In subsection (1) of section 87 of that Act (interpretation) the following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "the relevant authorities"—
"standard scale" means the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;.'.
54 page 58, line 18, after 'shall', insert 'also'.
55 page 58, line 19, after 'vary', insert 'any'.
56 page 59, line 2, at end, insert—
'42A. The following section shall be substituted for section 12 of that Act—
"Service of documents.
12.—(1) Any notice or other document required under this Act to be served on a person carrying on, or intending to carry on, a children's home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(2) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a children's home enclosing a notice or other document under this Act shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(3) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, without prejudice to subsection (2) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner of a firm, shall be that of the principal office of the firm and in any other case shall be the last known address of the person to be served.".'.
57 page 59, line 38, leave out 'welfare' and insert 'social'.
58 Schedule 4, page 61, line 24, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.
59 page 62, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 28 and insert—
'4. In section 22 (co-operation between health authorities and local authorities)
(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A)".
60 page 62, line 29, after 'each', insert 'joint consultative'.
61 page 62, line 31, at end, insert—

'(b) in subsection (4)(e), for the words "not members of the authorities represented by the joint consultative committee" there shall be substituted the words "neither—

(i) members of the authorities represented by the joint consultative committee; nor

(ii) appointed by virtue of an order under subsection (3A) above; and

(c) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—".

(3B) Without prejudice to the generality of section 126(4) below, the power to make an order conferred by subsection (3A) above may be exercised so as to make different provision for England and Wales and different provision for different committees in either'.
62 page 62, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 on page 70.
63 page 70, leave out lines 34 to 36.
64 page 70, line 41, leave out paragraphs 27 to 33.
65 Schedule 5, page 73, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert ' of a fully registered person'.
66 page 73, line 36, after (1), insert 'or (2)'.
67 page 73, line 47, leave out 'period of'.
[Note: The text of line 47, omitted in error from the bill, was issued in a correction slip, and reads: 'duties of such an appointment during the period of suspension. ".']
68 page 74, line 7 leave out 'in the locality of a Family Practitioner Committee'.
69 page 74, line 14, leave out 'locality' and insert 'district'.
70 page 74, line 17, leave out 'locality' and insert 'district'.
71 page 74, line 33, after '(1)' insert 'or (2).'
72 page 74, line 42, leave out from 'services' to 'but' in line 45.
73 page 74, line 46, leave out 'that period of' and insert 'the'.
74 page 75, line 7, after 'authority' insert '(other than a Family Practitioner Committee)'.
75 page 76, leave out lines 1 to 10.
76 Schedule 6, page 77, line 6, after '(1)', insert 'or (2)'.
77 page 77, line 17, leave out from 'services' to 'but' in line 19.
78 Schedule 7, page 79, line 13, amend, insert—
'(1E) The Chief Adjudication Officer shall report annually in writing to the Secretary of State on the standards of adjudication and the Secretary of State shall publish his report".
79 page 79, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
'(2A) One of those persons shall be drawn from the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (1B)of paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to this Act.
(2AA) The other shall be drawn from the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (IC) of that paragraph".
80 page 80, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'president'.
81 page 80, line 11, leave out 'each panel shall Act for such area' and insert 'shall act for such areas'.
82 page 80, line 12, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'President'.
83 page 80, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State sees' and insert 'President thinks'.
84 page 80, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
'(1A) There shall be two panels for each area.

667
(1B) One panel shall be composed of persons who appear to the President to represent employed earners.
(1C) The other shall be composed—

(a) of persons who appear to him represent employers and earners other than employed earners; and

(b) of persons who appear to him to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to represent persons living or working in it.'.

85 page 80, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'president'.
86 page 80, line 19, leave out from 'any' to end of line 20 and insert 'recommendations—

(a) from such local committees representing employers or employed earners or both; or

(b) from such organisations concerned with the interests of employers or employed earners; or

(c) from such other organinsations or from such persons, as he considers appropriate.'.

87 page 80, line 22, leave out 'Secretary of State may direct, but the Secretary of State' and insert 'President may direct, but the President'.
88 page 81, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert
'(11) The President may appoint such officers and staff as he thinks fit—

(a) for himself;

(b) for other persons appointed to offices under this paragraph; and

(c) for social security appeals tribunals, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.'

89 page 81, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'President'.
90 page 81, leave out lines 35 to 40.
91 page 81, line 41, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
92 page 81, line 42, at end, insert—
'Administrative duties of President
1D. It shall be the duty of the President—

(a) to arrange—

(i) such meetings of chairmen and members of social security appeal tribunals; and

(ii) such training for such chairmen and members, as he considers appropriate; and

(b) to secure that such works of reference relating to social security law as he considers appropriate are available for the use of chairmen and members of social security appeal tribunals.'

93 page 82, line 2, at end, insert 'after consultation with such academic medical bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.'.
94 page 82, line 14, at end, insert—
9A. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 5 of that Schedule—
"5A. The President may appoint such officers and staff for medical appeal tribunals as he thinks fit, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.".
9B The following paragraph shall be added at the end of that Schedule—
"9. It shall be the duty of the President—

(a) to arrange—

(i) such meetings of chairmen and members of medical appeal tribunals, and

(ii) such training for such chairmen and members, as he considers appropriate; and

(b) to secure that such works of reference relating to social security law as he considers appropriate are available for the use of chairmen and members of medical appeal tribunals.".'.

95 page 87, line 24, after 'provision' insert 'or saving'.
96 Schedule 8, pages 89, leave out lines 18 to 36.
97 page 90, leave out lines 5 to 27.
98 page 90, line 27, at end, insert—
'Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)
'13A. 'In section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (financial assistance to voluntary organisations), in subsection (5)—

(a) the word "section" shall be substituted for the words "section 64 and"; and

(b) after the word "1968" there shall be inserted the words "and section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978".'.

99 page 90, line 37, at end, insert—
'14A. In subsection (3) of section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (which specifies the tribunals mentioned in certain paragraphs of Schedule 1 to that Act of which the chairman are to be selected from a panel of person appointed by the Lord Chancellor) for the words "30A(a) or (c) or 30B" there shall be substituted the words "or 30A(a) or (c)".
14B. In subsection (1) of section 13 of that Act (appeals from certain tribunals) after word "Act", there shall be inserted the words "or to proceedings before a Registered Homes Tribunal".'.
100 page 90, line 39, leave out 'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971' and insert 'that Act'.
101 page 90, line 40, leave out—
"Children's Homes Registration"
and insert—
"Registration of voluntary homes under Child Care Act 1980 and children's homes under Children's Homes Act 1982.'
102 page 91, line 1, leave out paragraph 16.
103 page 91, leave out lines 34 to 41.
104 page 92, line 12, leave out '1959' and insert '1983'.
105 page 93, line 2, leave out paragraph 29.
106 page 93, line 12, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
107 page 93, leave out line 17.
108 page 93, line 33, at end, insert—
'Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 (c.63)
33. The words "for an area or district" shall be omitted from Part II of Schedule 1 to the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 (bodies constituted under the National Health Service Act 1977).'.
109 page 93, line 42, leave out paragraph 2.
110 Schedule 9, page 95, line 13, at end, insert—

'11 & 12 Geo. 6 c.29

National Assistance Act 1948.

Section 29(5).'.

111 page 95, line 23, column 3, at beginning, insert—

'Section 45(2).'.

112 page 95, line 29, column 3, at end, insert—

'Section 64 so far as it relates to Scotland.'.

113 page 95, line 31, column 3, at end, insert—

'In section 59A(1), the words "in residential establishments". Section 59A(3).'.

114 Page 95, line 50, column 3, at beginning, insert—

In section 13(1) the words "4" and 18(a).".'

115 Page 96, line 19, column 3, at end, insert—

In section 19(3)(b)(ii), the words "of those sections"'.

116 Page 96, line 23, column 3, at beginning, insert—

'In section 72, in section 59A(1), the words "in residential establishments" and section 59A(3)'.

117 Page 96, line 45, leave out from '22' to end of line 47.
118 Page 96, line 47, at end, insert—

'1977 c. 5.

Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977.

Section 22(15).'

119 Page 97, leave out lines 15 to 19.
120 Page 97, leave out lines 25 to 30.
121 Page 97, line 44, leave out from '""Teaching""' to end of line 57.
122 Page 97, line 57, column 3, at end, insert—

'In Schedule 8, paragraphs 1(2), 2(5) and 3(2).'.

123 Page 98, line 16, column 3, at beginning, insert—

'In section 10(2) the words from "and may" to the end of the subsection.'

124 Page 98, line 21, column 3, at end, insert—

'In section 39(2) in paragraph (c), the words "or voluntary organisation", and paragraph (e).'

125 Page 98, line 38, column 3, at end, insert—

'In Schedule 5, paragraphs 23(a) and 34(a).'

126 Page 98, line 47, at end, insert 'and'.
127 Page 98, leave out lines 50 to 53.
128 Page 99, line 2, leave out from '1' to end of line 32 and insert 'paragraph 29, and in paragraph 78(6), the words from "and' for" to "the word "Teaching""in both places where they occur.'.
129 Page 99, line 32, at end, insert—

1980 c. 63.

Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

In Schedule 1, in Part II, the words "for an area or district".'

130 Page 99, leave out line 39.
131 Page 99, line 44, at end, insert—

1982 c. 48.

Criminal Justice Act 1982.

Section 25(1).'

132 line 7, after 'medical', insert 'and dental'.
133 line 11, leave out from '1982;' to 'to' in line 13.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 133 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Copyright (Amendment) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of the Private Members' Bills before your Lordships this evening. It is a simple Bill which I think will not bring any wrath upon my head from any quarter of the House. It was piloted through another place by my right honourable friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, and I suppose it will go down as the last of his parliamentary activities because he is not standing again. I am glad, therefore, that with the cooperation of noble Lords opposite it has been agreed that we can take this Bill through and put it on the statute book.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who, last Friday, in a debate on his Bill on not dissimilar subjects, reminded the House about some of the problems of copyright infringement through piracy. He was talking mainly about music and the record industry and he mentioned a loss to legitimate interests of some £3 million per annum. This Bill is really about video-recordings, but it is an equally serious subject.
I should at this stage declare an interest in the matter which I hope will not be thought in any way to disqualify me from pursuing the legislation. I am a director of a large group of companies which includes companies which make programmes, some of which go on to video; another subsidiary processes video tapes; and yet another has numerous outlets for them for retail sale and hire in the high streets.
It was my noble friend Lord Lyell who reminded us last week that the Government intend a comprehensive review of copyright law. I suppose that they are not going to do that today and tomorrow and so we will now have to look forward to the next Parliament for them to pursue this worthy ambition. However,

671
there is one of the two urgent matters upon which the Whitford Committee made recommendations in March 1970 with which we can now deal—namely, the intention to increase penalties under the existing Section 21 of the Copyright Act 1956. The Government in the 1981 Green Paper agreed with that recommendation and they said that they accepted the need for stiffer penalties against those who knowingly deal with infringing products, and they hoped that that would be an effective deterrent. It needs to be an effective deterrent. London has the unenviable reputation at the moment of being the piracy capital of the world and that is not something of which we should be proud.
The British Videogram Association, which is the commercial side of this matter, estimate that they lose at the moment about £120 million per annum in revenue. That does not say anything about the royalties that are lost by a multiplicity of artistes and production companies; nor does it say anything about the reduction in the already fragile cinema audiences. Then of course the taxpayer loses in the form of taxes unpaid and VAT unpaid. There is even an employment aspect, because in the last two years the legitimate video industry has taken on no less than 20,000 people into new jobs. Therefore, that also is something that we would wish to encourage and not see undermined by the influx of the pirates' trade.
By all accounts the infringement of this copyright is big business. The theft—and that is what it is—of the intellectual property protected by copyright is now a major criminal activity. In the United Kingdom it can at present be embarked upon without any real risk at all. In the United States—and I have translated this into rough sterling figures at the current rates of exchange—the maximum penalty is £160,000 or five years' imprisonment; in France it is £3,000 or two years' imprisonment; in Holland it is just over £6,000 or six months' imprisonment; in Italy it is £3,750 or three years' imprisonment—and that is all for the very first offence when an offender comes before the court for making a counterfeit tape. In this country under the Copyright Act, even with the amendments just brought in last month by the Criminal Justice Act of last year, the maximum fine is £200. Only summary proceedings are available in the magistrates' court. I may say that until April the maximum fine was £25, and even if there was more than one offence the total maximum was only £50.
It is perhaps therefore not surprising that in the last six months of 1982 there were only two police raids and seizures of counterfeit tapes. Penalties as derisory as that simply did not warrant the use of scarce police manpower. Therefore, the object of this Bill is to deal with the penalties, and I shall come on to that in a moment. Before that I should mention two other possible remedies which have been available to some extent.
First of all, action has been able to be taken by trading standards officers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. An offence under that Act carries a maximum fine of £1,000 for the summary offence, and unlimited fines and/or two years' imprisonment on indictment. That is a little more formidable. The problem, however, is that an offence under that Act is almost certainly only committed if the cassette is
672
packaged in such a way as to mislead the buyer into thinking that it is being marketed by a reputable company with the authority of copyright owners, and up to the standards required by such people. That is not very easy to prove, and it is comparatively easy to avoid if you know about it and wish to see that you do not get into trouble under the Trade Descriptions Act. In any event, one might think that it is perhaps not primarily for those most useful local authority officials, the trading standards officers, to be in the frontline of a fight on something which is now a matter of major organised crime.
Then, again, there is the possibility of action in the civil courts. You can go to the High Court for what is called an Anton Piller order, so-called after the German company which was the plaintiff in the case in which this remedy was first, in the middle of the last decade, fully discussed. An Anton Piller order, particularly coupled with an action for damages for breach of copyright, enables premises to be entered and goods seized in order that they should be available for the hearing of the case in the action for damages. But, again, there is a problem, because the courts have said from time to time and again recently that this remedy should be used only in extremely serious cases. The fact of the matter is that they have not been able to use it in a way that would make it possible to wipe out entirely this evil activity.
The people concerned have brought cases before the civil courts. There have been a number of Anton Piller orders made, and again in the last six months of last year they obtained, or think that they are likely to obtain, about £300,000 in damages. But of course the trouble is that the investigation costs and legal fees have cost them nearly twice as much as that, and in any case it is only the tip of the iceberg because they have only thought fit to use these cases against major counterfeiters and have in no way attempted to go for the retailer of these counterfeit tapes.
Hence we have this Bill. It breaks down the offences which are already in Section 21 of the Copyright Act—and there is an amendment of it—into two. In the case of the first group, which is confined to the less serious offences such as possessing counterfeit tapes, or having them available to hire or to sell, or exhibiting them, there will now be a liability for a fine of up to £1,000—that is what the formula in the Bill currently means, and of course it can now be amended without legislation every time—together with the possibility of two months' imprisonment. That is for each offence for each illegal copy sold, possessed, and so on. Therefore, even in the hands of the magistrates there is a very significant change indeed from the present situation.
For the more serious offences the trial can still be summary, and in that case the maximum penalties would be the same; but either the prosecution, or, indeed, the magistrates themselves if they think that it is a serious case, can ensure that the matter goes before the Crown Court. If it is dealt with on indictment or by referral to the Crown Court there is now to be an unlimited maximum fine together with, or as an alternative to, two years' imprisonment. The offences to which this applies are those of making illegal copies of video cassettes for sale. By that I do not include those who just make one in the home, although that is

673
in fact illegal. This applies to those who make them for sale. The other offence is importing such illegal counterfeit cassettes into the United Kingdom other than for private use, and for distributing for trade or other purposes prejudicial to the owner of the copyright such imported cassettes.
It is the second group to which Clause 2 really applies, because there is this one extra matter in the Bill: the power of search in the case of one of these more serious offences, and the power to seize matters that are found in the course of a search. That can only he done on the warrant of a magistrate if he is satisfied on sworn evidence that there are reasonable grounds for believing that one of these serious offences has been committed, or is about to be committed, and that evidence of this will be found on the premises concerned. In Scotland the sheriff is similarly placed to issue a warrant on the same terms.
Thus, in practice, there will be a severe restriction upon the use of this power, which I know full well Members of this House do not look upon with great favour unless a good case is made out for it. But, of course, in the circumstances it has proved necessary in the past to make such searches either under the Trade Descriptions Act or under the civil law, and I believe I can persuade your Lordships that the Copyright Act itself ought to provide the proper provisions for it. But it will not be used to deal with the retail shops because there it is intended that the existing powers under the Trade Descriptions Act will be quite adequate, as they have been before, and the trading standard officers will be able to continue to deal with it.
It is the belief of those who support this Bill that it will put real teeth into the law and provide proper safeguards. I hope, therefore, that it may now quickly be allowed to complete its parliamentary passage so that it can come into force, as it itself says at the end, on 13th July. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, not for the first time the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for the lucid manner in which he has introduced an important measure. I find myself in a somewhat original and unique position standing up at this Dispatch Box, because while agreeing fully with my noble friends who have protested at the speed with which Bills have been brought before your Lordships today with an expedition remarkable in its intensity and yet somewhat dangerous in its complexities, I find myself welcoming the fact that this Bill has been dealt with speedily. Without any doubt at all it deals with an evil which is a threat to great industries in this country, to the employees in those industries, and is a measure that ought to be passed by the House with a good heart.
Your Lordships have already heard from the noble Viscount of the losses that are being sustained. He mentioned a figure of £120 million and he used the word "piracy" again. He referred to a Bill which was moved by my noble friend Lord Willis which obtained a Second Reading last week. My noble friend correctly
674
said that he thought that "piracy" was too romantic a word to be used in connection with what is undoubtedly theft. I therefore intend to talk about robbers and not pirates. At least, I have added something to the noble Viscount's speech and from that point of view will not merely be copying what he has said.
Without a doubt this is a field in which the criminal law has to move and with some amount of force because of the sums involved. As the noble Viscount said, this city of ours, of which we are so proud, has a new name as the centre of this robbing industry. It is a disgraceful reputation for us to have and the sooner we deal with these robbers the better.
As the noble Viscount hinted, the civil law is not sufficient to deal with this matter. He explained very lucidly the order, which is known as the Anton Piller order. To add to what he has already said, the judges have made it quite clear that those orders can only be obtained in exceptional circumstances. I am using the phrase that I believe was used by Mr. Justice Whitford. It has also been made clear in some cases that these matters are more properly dealt with in the Crown Court than in the civil court, and it was a civil Chancery Judge who said it. The onus is upon us to deal with this matter and to see that proper penalties are imposed. That is what the Bill does.
I have only one other set of observations to make and they will be brief. My noble friend—as I call him without any difficulty—the noble Viscount, referred to the seizure section of this Bill when, after a warrant has been issued, it is possible for documents and goods to be seized.
There was a Bill of which some of your Lordships may have heard. It was called the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Your Lordships may have remembered that never were their postbags so full as when that Bill came before another place. I do not intend to discuss the demerits of that Bill at this stage, because it has died a decent death. It would not have lived a decent life had it survived, but Clause 14, as amended, in that Bill made it perfectly clear that when the police exercise their rights of seizure of documents they could not seize documents that were privileged as between a legal adviser and a client.
When this Bill was before another place, under the able pilotage of Sir John Eden—whose passing from parliamentary life is a matter of regret, regardless of political allegiances—representations were made to him on behalf of the legal profession that that Bill, of itself, did not seem to spell out the protection that ought to be given to these legal privileges. Sir John Eden correctly said that we should look at Clause 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to find that it would cover the situation when it becomes an Act. As we know it is not to become an Act and therefore one has to look rather carefully at these rights of seizure to make absolutely sure that the common law situation on privilege in relation to legal documents is not being defeated.
The last thing in the world that I want to do on behalf of my noble friends is to impede the passage of this Bill in any way. Normally, if I had had more time, I would have put down an amendment. It would have been discussed and we would have decided whether

675
that amendment was necessary to cover my point. I do not have that opportunity, for if I did avail myself of it I should be stifling the Bill. Indeed, it would be stillborn. I do not intend to do that. Instead I hope to rely on the fact that common law rights are in no way interfered with by the Bill, that this exception does stand and because of other legislation that the noble Viscount mentioned—which clearly one thinks retains the right of privilege—that this would apply to this Bill. It would help if on the record the noble Viscount and the noble Minister were able to say that they were both sure that this point was covered.
If we find that somewhat unfortunately a case emerges in which the noble Lord and the noble Viscount are found to be wrong, our care in this matter will be on record and possibly—but I hope not—some short amending Bill will have to be passed. I mention this out of abundant caution because your Lordships appreciate that the privilege which obtains between a legal adviser and his client in relation to documents is sacred in our legal tradition and one not lightly to be cast aside.
Subject to those comments, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and express our appreciation to the noble Viscount and to the Member in another place who are both responsible for the Bill being before your Lordships tonight.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it only remains for me, on behalf of the Government, to reiterate everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and indeed if he would pass on the encomiums it has received and deservedly so in your Lordships' House to our right honourable friend in another place for bringing this Bill, which the Government warmly support, before your Lordships so swiftly following its very successful passage in another place.
My noble friend pointed out and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us of what happened last Friday when we discussed video piracy, but the situation is much more serious and less glamorous than that. Video piracy has seen a phenomenal growth in the past two or three years and we understand that about two-thirds of the videograms—which I understand is the trade name for pre-recorded video tapes—on the sale and rental market in this country are now pirate copies. The outcome of this extraordinary level of criminal activity is that some £120 millions each year is lost to the legitimate film and video industry and, above all, to those whose creative skill and energy result in the products on which that industry is based. Correspondingly there are fewer funds to be ploughed back into new productions, which is a serious threat to jobs, and it is also a threat to the production of new films—all this at a time when there is a great and notable resurgence of the British film industry, as witness the two examples "Chariots of Fire" and more recently "Ghandi".
The Government see this Bill as one of two measures which complement one another. In the one measure are the very substantial increases, which were mentioned in customary detail by my noble friend, in the penalties that offenders who are found guilty of film or record copyright offences will face. It has long
676
been recognised that the penalties which are currently available for offences against the Copyright Act 1956 are inadequate. The Copyright Green Paper, published in 1981, that many of us have discussed, stated that the intention of the Government was to increase the penalties to make them effective deterrents. The sudden and, as it is now seen to be, unforeseeable explosion in video piracy has demanded that this problem receives immediate and urgent attention in advance of the general reform of copyright. As my noble friend has pointed out, under the Bill the penalties will become very severe and, as a result of this, we can look forward to a turning of the tide against the video pirates as the deterrent influence of these very heavy penalties takes effect.
The Government also strongly support the Bill's second provision giving the police the powers necessary to detect and pursue video and record pirates. This provision strikes, we hope, the right balance in requiring a constable to apply to a magistrate for a warrant and in granting these powers of entry only in relation to premises where it is suspected that one of the more serious offences (that is, manufacture, import or distribution) has been or is about to be committed. This will assist the police in the investigation of piracy offences. It will be for the local chief police officers to decide what resources they should allocate to these new powers. It will remain important for the film and video industry to continue to do the major part of the work of investigation and collection of evidence.
To digress slightly, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, turned towards documents. My admirable advisers have given me a brief outline which I hope may be of some comfort to him. We understand that the legal professions welcome this Bill. They have expressed concern that the loss of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill may mean that legally-privileged documents would become vulnerable to seizure. I acknowledge that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would have introduced important, specific safeguards here; but we do not think that the professions should be anxious over the privacy of their offices. This is because of the way that my noble friend's Bill is drafted. I understand that Clause 2 of the Bill provides that a justice may issue a search warrant if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that evidence of a copyright offence is in the premises where the offence has been or is about to be committed.
My Lords, this does not answer all the questions which have been raised. There are many questions in this particular field which have been raised by the legal professions. The Bill before the House is very limited in its aims and, in common with other, similar measures—and one example is gaming legislation—it gives a power to search for evidence of certain specific offences. This is a very difficult area and we would suggest that this Bill is not the place to deal with a matter of somewhat broader legal principle which should apply equally to other legislation. I myself have not entered deeply into this problem of legal search warrants especially as I have extended it in this brief addendum to my remarks on the Bill before us. I hope that this might in some way have helped in answering the point.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. The last thing I want to do is to burden him with a technical argument. It would be completely unfair and I do not think your Lordships would greet it with great approbation at this hour. Can he say that it is certainly the Government's intention that documents should be protected if they come under the common law privilege of documents which are between a legal adviser and his client? If he could say that it is the Government's desire that that is so and their belief that that is so, it would help in view of what I was trying to say before in an effort not to impede the progress of this Bill.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I was prepared to speak for a little longer to allow one of my noble colleagues to obtain advice through the traditional winged messengers. I have seen with my own eyes, and my noble friend has indicated, that there was a degree of head-nodding and that we could assure the noble Lord on that particular point. I am afraid the noble Lord has caught me totally in a field with which I am not familiar. I hope that assurance will satisfy him so far as the legally privileged documents and the privilege aspect of this Bill are concerned.
In conclusion, the view of the Government is that this is an excellent Bill which deserves to become law. Our support for it at all stages has reflected the Government's determination to stamp out video and record piracy as well as our belief that the Bill represents a major step forward towards that objective.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his welcome and for the Government's support in this measure. There is just one thing which I think needs dealing with and upon which I believe that I can add a little to what my noble friend has said. I am delighted to hear that that is the Government's policy, and the fact that it was in Clause 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in general terms, applying to a very broad range of powers of search, underpins what my noble friend has said. I would put this to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as something that I should like him to think about. There are, indeed, a fairly large number of statutes which, for limited and proper reasons, give powers of search and seizure of documents to certain persons, usually the police, where criminal offences are anticipated to have occurred.
I mentioned one of these when I was referring to the Trade Descriptions Act. It is under that Act that so far the vast majority of the seizures of counterfeit video cassettes have been undertaken. What it says in Section 28 is that the trading standards officer:
"may seize and detain any goods or documents which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under this Act".
It does not say anything about them not being privileged documents. What it says in subsection (7) is that:
"Nothing in this section shall be taken to compel the production by a solicitor of a document containing a privileged communication made by or to him in that capacity …"
In other words, in 1968, in that Act, in common with a large number of other Acts where the question
678
of search and seizure has been passed by Parliament, it was not considered necessary, it appears, for Parliament to do anything about the common law in relation to privileged documents on the premises of the supposed criminal. All right! They have made a specific provision for the solicitor's own office not to be subject to these searches, but when it comes to his client in his client's own premises, it has been thought, evidently, that the common law is enough.
That is the situation as it would apply under this Bill. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is probably best that it should be so left, for this reason. It is one thing in Clause 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to give this protection overall to a large number of instances under different statutes whereby privileged documents might be threatened in some way or another; but to put it in only one individual case of a large set of statutes, all of which have similar powers but all the others of which say nothing about privileged documents, would be much more likely to throw doubt on the degree of protection available under the other powers of search than it would to do anything greatly in the way of protection of the sort of documents being referred to under this Bill. In other words, it might be said that if Parliament thought that in the copyright sphere it was necessary specifically to say something about privileged documents, why on earth did it not do it in all the other legislation?—and that would throw doubt on the protection of these sort of documents under the other legislation.
This is an argument often raised in Parliament and the noble Lord will know it is a matter of statutory interpretation. It is something which can quite often come in front of the courts. A parliamentary inconsistency of this kind is a very dangerous thing. I am sure there will be a major outcry if anyone is so silly as to seize under these powers a privileged document, and then no doubt there will have to be legislation passed, I hope in general terms, to stop it. But as the Bill stands, and even without Clause 14, I hope that the noble Lord is somewhat reassured by my technical argument and by the policy statement we have heard from my noble friend on the Front Bench. In those circumstances, I hope that he will think it is safe for this Bill to go forward to the statute book.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, sits down, may I thank him for the helpful addition to the discussion we have had. I made it abundantly clear that the last thing I would do would be to try and seek protection in a clear and emphatic way, which we all hope is not necessary, for privileged documents and in fact in doing so, protect the robbers we have been talking about in the House tonight. I have no wish on behalf of my noble friends to delay this legislation. It is unfortunate that we could not discuss the matter at Committee stage, but there it is, and I am most grateful for the discussion which has taken place.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is very generous. We have had a little Committee stage of a sort in the course of the Second Reading. In these circumstances, there has been such a welcome for the Bill that I may safely ask

679
your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I so move.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated or is indicating a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.
—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I beg to move. This brief measure was introduced in another place by the honourable member for Newbury. It is, I believe, uncontroversial. To explain what the Bill would do I must give your Lordships some background; but unless asked to do so I do not propose to go through it clause by clause. The Community Driving Licence Regulations which this House approved in October 1982 gave people who come to live in this country and hold other European Community driving licences the right to exchange them for the equivalent British driving licences. These arrangements came into force on 1st January 1983. These regulations were made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
Owing to limitations in the enabling powers, two small groups of United Kingdom licence holders were placed at a disadvantage compared with the holders of licences issued in other Community states. One group so disadvantaged is the holders of Gibraltar licences who can now exchange their licences in every country of the Community except here in Britain. The other group consists of Northern Ireland and Ireland holders of public service vehicle drivers' licences who, unlike Northern Irish heavy goods vehicle drivers and unlike holders of vocational licences elsewhere in the Community, do not have the right of exchange in the United Kingdom. In his memorandum on the regulations to the Joint Scrutiny Committee, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport promised that this anomaly would be put right at the earliest opportunity and that is one purpose of this Bill. The other purpose is to fulfil an undertaking given by the then Secretary of State for Transport when opening the debate on the European Community Draft Directive which introduced the Community driving licence exchanges. He said he would be ready to consider extending similar exchange arrangements for cars to other countries provided, of course, their standards are satisfactory.
I stress that he did not propose—and nor does the Bill propose—any extension of the present arrangements
680
under the directive for the exchange of vocational licences; that is, heavy goods and public service vehicle drivers' licences beyond the United Kingdom and the European Community. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, but I understand that similar legislation will follow in that Province if this Bill is passed into law. I believe that the Bill is such as to be welcomed on all sides of the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for explaining the Bill. When one had the Bill this morning for the first time it was difficult to understand exactly what were the provisions because it inserts bits and pieces in other legislation. But from the explanation of the noble Lord one can now see quite clearly the purpose of it, and I am grateful to him.
When the Community Licence Regulations were introduced last October, I said on that occasion that any provision which eases the movement of people, assists them to work and to take up residence is to be welcomed, but at the same time I added—and other noble Lords echoed this—so long as there is no lessening of our effective safety standards. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made some points and gave assurances in that direction.
I am pleased to note that the Bill not only deals with Gibraltar but when the Community Licence Regulations were introduced I recall I made the point that if the Government proposed to introduce primary legislation to deal with the position of Gibraltar, I hoped at the same time they would take the opportunity of providing for bilateral arrangements with states outside the Community. In effect, the Bill makes that provision, or the opportunity is there. I note that an amendment was put in the other place—I do not know at what stage because there was no Second Reading debate and no Committee stage so it must have been during an abbreviated Report stage—to provide that the Secretary of State shall have appropriate consultations before he designates other states outside the Community to which this may apply.
I hope some care will be exercised in that and although of course this Government cannot bind the incoming Government—which I have no doubt will be totally different—nevertheless the Bill takes effect within two months of passing. No doubt the Government and the department will be considering steps to implement the Bill. I have no doubt that the Government will accept the Bill in view of the assurance given previously. I am sure the Government will pay careful attention to the need for the preserving of standards. The Minister, in connection with the Community Licence Regulations gave an opportunity for dealing with standards throughout the Community. As this Bill now gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State to designate countries outside the Community, there could be a problem as regards ensuring that our standards are adhered to. I hope that attention will be given to that important matter and that the Secretary of State will take it into consideration when he considers designation.

681
I regret that there appears to be no provision in the Bill for any designation by the Secretary of State to receive Parliamentary approval, even by a negative order. I assume that it is merely a designation that the Secretary of State will make. That makes it more important for attention to be given to the question of safety standards.
I do not think I need refer to the provisions of Clause 2 as the noble Lord has made it clear that this applies solely to the position of Gibraltar regarding heavy goods and passenger service vehicles. When we look at Clause which deals with passenger service vehicle licences operating in Northern Ireland, we find that if a person has held, within the previous five years, a licence to drive a passenger service vehicle in Ireland, there need be no compliance with a condition for a passenger service vehicle test, as there is in this country.
I assume that the licensing authority has to be satisfied that the person has held a licence in Northern Ireland for five years; but a situation could arise where a person has held a licence for only a few weeks and therefore there is no evidence of real experience in driving a passenger service vehicle. In such a situation I hope that the Secretary of State will pay careful attention to this point and that there will be an opportunity in such cases for the licensing authority to insist that there should be a test. With those minor comments. I welcome the Bill. I hope the Government will accept it and that it will come into effect within two months of its passing.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think I need add more than a few words to the explanation of this measure which has been given to your Lordships by my noble friend. The present discrimination against certain United Kingdom licence-holders, to which he has referred, affects only a very few drivers. Nevertheless, this is an injustice which we would all wish to remedy as soon as possible. The initiative taken by my honourable friend the Member for Newbury and by my noble friend Lord Cullen is therefore most welcome.
As has been explained, the Bill takes the opportunity to extend ordinary licence exchange to third countries outside the Community, subject to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State being satisfied about their driving test and other aspects of the driving licence. I envisage that there would be reciprocal arrangements with the countries concerned: in fact many countries already exchange British licences. I would underline what my noble friend said: there is no proposal to extend beyond the European Community the arrangements stemming from the Rome Treaty guarantees on free movement of workers for the exchange of vocational driving licences. In other words, there is no question of diluting our vocational licensing scheme through this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised a very important point. Since he asked the question of the Government, it may be appropriate if my noble friend allows me to put the Government's point of view regarding that question. The noble Lord spoke of the amendment which the Government accepted in
682
another place last night. It was of course an Opposition amendment, stemming largely from the very reasonable comments made by the Royal Automobile Club that there ought to be consultation before countries outside the Community are designated for exchange of licences.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that in the department we estimate that there are some 200 driving licence administrations in the world. These range from nation-states to colonies, provinces and so forth. There are the Australian and American states, the Canadian provinces and so on, each with its own laws. We shall need to consider very carefully which of them meet the standards set by the United Kingdom and the European Community. With the international contacts that the motoring organisations have, there is no doubt that their knowledge will add to that which the department will gather from the Governments concerned. That will enable the Secretary of State to reach an informed decision on each designation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to this. I think he would be reassured to know that in making these decisions the basic criteria would be those standards set both in the United Kingdom and in the European Community. I believe the noble Lord will appreciate that even having made the designation—by order admittedly—there is provision for the reversal of the same, should there be a change of circumstances in the country which has been so designated. Obviously it will not be possible to do this all at once. Countries on which we can gather sufficient information during the months before the Act comes into force will be designated subject, as we have said, to consultation and without delay. However, information on other countries may take longer and there will have to be further designations from time to time.
The noble Lord also raised a very important point on Clause 3: the Northern Ireland licence to drive public service vehicles. May I paraphrase his question: will the licensing authority be assured that the PSV licence-holder in Northen Ireland has undertaken this kind of work for a period of five years without committing an offence? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords, will recall that passenger service vehicles drivers' licences are granted by the traffic commissioners in the same traffic areas and by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the Public Carriage Office in London. Their powers are based on Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act of 1981, although driving licences are issued in several other United Kingdom jurisdictions. It will therefore be up to the commissioners, in considering this transfer of licence, to take account of all relevant facts. I have little doubt that the commissioners will be very much seized of the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I repeat that we will attempt to ensure—indeed we will ensure—that there will be no lowering of standards, particularly among vocational driving licence holders.
May I also mention that this Bill is concerned with people who become resident here. The existing international conventions will continue to cover visitors engaged in international commerce and tourism. So it is a fairly restricted Bill and is one which I wish to commend to the House.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his welcome to the Bill, and even more so to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who spoke for the Government, for his welcome.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May): Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Audit Bill
8.31 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It started as a Private Member's Bill in another place, where it was introduced and piloted by my right honourable friend Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas—an experienced and respected parliamentarian, a constitutional expert and formerly Leader of another place. The Bill concerns the House of Commons and its control over money voted in taxation. Its purpose is to ensure that the money voted by Parliament is properly and efficiently spent. It is, as your Lordships will appreciate, essentially a House of Commons matter, but it is not a Money Bill so it requires your Lordships' approval.
The Bill is now wholly uncontroversial in party political or any other terms, and it has the support of all parties and of the Government so far as another place is concerned, and I believe in your Lordships' House as well. The drafting was ultimately carried out with the help of the Treasury. I think it is proper for me to mention that it has the support of the Comptroller and Auditor General—that eminent official who is most affected by the Bill.
Earlier controversy, when the Bill was first introduced, centred on the inclusion of nationalised industries and public companies owned by the Government, bringing them within the scope of the control by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the House of Commons commission which is mentioned in the Bill. But those two categories were removed from the Bill at the Committee stage, and that is what has rendered the Bill uncontroversial. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading after no less than five hours' debate on the Floor of the House, and there was a long Committee stage, with seven sittings of two-and-a-half hours each. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who shares with me experience of having served in another place, will know that that is very thorough consideration in Standing Committee, and it was there that the Bill was substantially amended.
I should point out that with, of course, the co-operation of my right honourable friend Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, it was Treasury Ministers who made the running in the Standing Committee and got the Bill into a shape which was found to be generally acceptable to all concerned. It was originally called the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill—if I may say so, a very apt description, because that is just about what the Bill does, although it is a rather long Short Title. However, in Committee it was
684
restyled the National Audit Bill, and that is what comes before us this evening.
I think I can quickly explain its terms and effect by simply running through the first eight clauses quite briefly. Clause 1 provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be an officer of the House of Commons, instead of being appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister as a result of the proposal made in 1866 by Mr. Gladstone when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In future, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be appointed by the House of Commons on a Motion moved by the Prime Minister, with the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, who will, no doubt, consult the committee. In this way the interests of all parties should have been taken into account. I understand that Her Majesty has signified her assent to the modification of the Royal Prerogative, and my noble friend the Chief Whip will no doubt indicate that at a later stage.
Clause 2 establishes the House of Commons commission, including the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. The function of this commission is to approve an estimate of expenses for the National Audit Office and lay it before the House. Clause 4 is also relevant to that, as I shall show. Clause 3 sets up the National Audit Office and gives the Comptroller and Auditor General power to appoint the staff and to determine their conditions and salaries, which will be in line with Civil Service scales.
Clause 4 lays down how the expenses of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be defrayed and accounted for, and also points to the way in which his duties shall be discharged. In addition, it arranges for the appointment of an accounting officer, who will be appointed by the commission. Clause 5 introduces something quite fresh, and I hope that your Lordships will find it welcome. It enables audit fees to be charged when the Comptroller and Auditor General is asked to undertake a scrutiny outside the main purpose of his work. Audit fees are something which cannot, in theory, be charged at the moment but which, I understand, are in fact paid in practice when appropriate.
Clause 6 gives statutory backing to what are best described as "value for money" audits, although if your Lordships will look at the Bill it will be seen that they are described in somewhat more technical and wide terms. The Comptroller and Auditor General, as we all well know, does this at present, but does so by convention rather than by statute. The authority given by Clause 6 applies to those departments and bodies which he does at present audit. Clause 7 provides that bodies which are mainly supported by public funds—and the definition of "supported by public funds" is the provision of over half their income—shall be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course, he has no power to question the merits of policy objectives. I should mention, in passing, that that condition applies also to his "value for money" audits under Clause 6. The point to bear in mind here is that the Government should remain responsible for broad decisions of policy, and that there should be no overlap between the Government's decisions and the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is concerned

685
only with the finances and the way in which those decisions are implemented.
I should mention subsection (4) of Clause 7, which excludes the nationalised industries and certain public bodies from the jurisdiction of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those bodies are listed in Schedule 4. As your Lordships know, those bodies have, under statute, their own arrangements for the carrying out of their financial responsibilities. Clause 8 gives to the Comptroller and Auditor General access to documents under the objective test of reasonableness. I hope that will cause no trouble about disclosure in the courts.
Part III of the Bill is technical and consequential, and the schedules are consequential upon the first eight clauses which I have outlined; but again I should draw attention to the fact that the nationalised industries are specifically listed under Schedule 4, which derives its authority from subsection (4) of Clause 7.
I hope your Lordships will find that explanation, brief though it is, acceptable. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Renton.)
8.42p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for having moved the Second Reading of the Bill. As the noble Lord has indicated, this is not a money Bill. Therefore it is a little unfortunate that the Bill is not to receive detailed and adequate consideration by this House. We regret that it has come here at such short notice and that the emergency conditions which have arisen, through no fault of the Opposition, have resulted in agreements and arrangements being made through the usual channels for the speedy expedition of the Bill. During earlier debates today one would have thought, listening to other noble Lords, that this emergency had been thrust on the country by the Opposition, not by the Government. It is the Government's entire responsibility that our proceedings have been truncated. The Opposition did not precipitate the alleged "emergency" with which Parliament is confronted. Initially we should have liked to give further and more detailed consideration to the Bill.
Nevertheless, I say immediately that we are grateful to the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, whose sense of public duty transcends purely party considerations and whose persistence has resulted in the Bill passing ultimately through another place with the aid of his colleagues, my right honourable friend Mr. Joel Barnett and Member of all parties. Therefore we are very grateful to the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, for having persisted so far and so fast in bringing this measure towards the statute book.
A number of technical considerations arise which in the ordinary way would have required a good deal more consideration than we are able to give them today under the arrangements which have been agreed
686
between the parties. Perhaps I can best explain my own misgivings by referring to the Long Title of the Bill. Among other things, it refers to,
"making new provision for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of such money by government departments and other authorities and bodies."
The Long Title refers to money within the context of the promotion of efficiency, but if one refers to Part II of the Bill, Clause 6(1) reads as follows:
"The Comptroller and Auditor General may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which any department, authority or other body to which this section applies has used its resources in discharging its functions".
The reason I raise this point is because there is a world of difference between money and resources. One of the unfortunate afflictions of the British public financial system and its method of bookkeeping and accounts is that it presents its accounts in the form of a receipts and payments account only. Under the existing legislation it is not required to present an account to the public of how it uses its resources, in the largest sense. And the use of resources includes its non-monetary assets. These may include buildings, plant and machinery, and many other items.
If one is going to determine economy, efficiency and effectiveness, one needs to look not only at the receipts and payments account but also at the resources as a whole. For that reason, I am very sorry indeed that we in this House were unable to obtain longer notice for discussion of the Bill. Had it come within the normal time tolerance of the schedule of business of the House, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, a distinguished chartered accountant, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, another distinguished accountant, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is also in the profession, would have had an opportunity to discuss the Bill in much greater detail.
I hope that in due course the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, and the Public Accounts Committee will read the report of our debate and that they may feel disposed to take account of these observations. As an accountant myself, I aver and insist that one cannot judge efficiency, economy and effectiveness without reviewing the position of any concern as a whole, including the utilisation of its assets. This in itself will mean, if it is to be effective, a very considerable reform of the manner by which Governments of any party—I make no party point about it—keep their accounts and present them to the public. It might act as a deterrent to Governments who wish to flog off assets, which have been purchased out of taxpayers' money at prices far below their cost, without the losses resulting from those transactions being disclosed to the British taxpayer. The noble Lord may think that is a partisan point. I agree that it has party overtones. Nevertheless, it remains quite true.
It is, I believe, within your Lordships' knowledge that the Netherlands adopt a far more comprehensive system of accounting, not only in the accounts of their national Government but also in the accounts of their local authorities. As the noble Lord knows very well if he has read the Layfield report, local authorities in this country are not required to account to the ratepayers or to the public as to what happens to the assets which they own. Once again on a partisan note, had the local ratepayers been aware of the loss of ratepayers' money

687
which had been incurred by flogging off houses at a fraction of their cost, they might have thought again about it.
Those are only markers which ought to have been laid down and discussed at some length in this House, because they do presuppose that Part II of the Bill, to become really effective in the sense that the public is being led to presume they will be effective, will need some considerable changes in the whole system of Government accounting—whichever party is in power. In parenthesis, by previous consultation with my colleagues in my own party, I have no reason to presume that I would not have to persuade them just as hard as I am persuading the present Government in this particular direction.
Reform is indicated in that respect, and ancillary to that, a fundamental change is required in the Civil Service itself—I am talking about the general administrative grades in the Civil Service—to stop resisting (as they have so far successfully resisted) the engagement of more professional accountants to be involved in the machinery of government itself. I sincerely hope that the Public Accounts Committee will take account of that also in due course, and the comptroller too.
Having delivered myself of those homilies, which I believe are of importance and which are fortunately within the professional competence of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who occupies a distinguished position in my own profession, I sincerely hope that we may have an indication from the Government that the word "resources" included in Clause 6 (1) goes far beyond money and includes all the physical and other assets. Subject to that, we on this side of the House are quite willing, in the light of the arrangements which have been made between the parties, to facilitate the passage of this Bill.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, from this position the Government would only wish me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton who has introduced the purpose of this Bill. I am sure your Lordships would wish the encomiums which have been passed on to my noble friend to be passed on to our right honourable friend in another place. Indeed, he tends to have a foot in two places because he is fortunately able to be present, albeit unofficially, at our deliberations this evening.
The Government's view is that we approve of parts of this Bill and the spirit behind it. Your Lordships have noted that the comptroller will continue to be appointed by the Crown. But the Bill also provides that, in future, the Crown will exercise this power on an Address presented by another place. No Motion shall be made for such an address except by the Prime Minister acting with the agreement of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. These arrangements reflect the shared interest of Parliament and the Executive in this very important appointment.
Under the existing and long standing legislation the comptroller conducts basic financial and regularity audits. I will not go into an exact definition of the word "resources" in Clause 6 (1) because we could be here quite some time if we went into an exact definition of that word. But my noble friend Lord Renton and even
688
the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would agree that the important work of the comptroller in the area of value for money has had no specific statutory authority. This Bill will give to the comptroller such authority because, in broad terms, the effect of this part of the Bill will be to provide a specific statutory basis for the value for money examinations which the comptroller and his staff already carry out in departments and certain other bodies in receipt of public funds.
The Government have consistently supported the provisions which now make up this Bill. We regret that the proposals for value for money examinations of the nationalised industries which were put forward by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary have not been incorporated in the Bill, because they would have provided a valuable means of improving parliamentary accountability and increasing the efficiency of those industries. The Government will now consider what can be done on a non-statutory basis in consultation with those industries. Despite the omission of these important provisions, the Government support this Bill in its present form.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, sits down will he please confirm that it is the Government's attitude at the moment that they cannot define the word "resources" within this Bill?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not see the word "resources" in any of the definitions in the Bill. The noble Lord tempted me and I sparred with the word "resources". The noble Lord thought it would be all-encompassing but we do not wish to go any further in defining the noble Lord's wide spectrum of what these "resources" might be.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and to my noble friend Lord Lyell, for their contributions to this debate. We all regret short discussion on matters about which we could go on talking for a very long time. I resist the temptation to answer the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the exigencies of our timetable, except to say that nothing unconstitutional has occurred and that the decision to hold a general election is part of the sound working of our democracy.
I was interested by the contrast that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, drew between receipts and payments in public expenditure and, on the other hand, the accounting or lack of accounting for resources. No doubt all concerned will take note of the noble Lord's comments, which illustrate the value of scrutiny by your Lordships even in matters which mainly concern another place.
The noble Lord mentioned also local government audits, but they are not within the scope of this Bill. He also spoke about this question of the engagement of staff by Government departments so far as accountants are concerned. I must point out that the Bill does not deal with that. The National Audit Office—and one should stress this—will not be a Government department; it will be part of the structure of Parliament. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General

689
will be an officer of the House of Commons. It may be that I misheard my noble friend Lord Lyell. If I did mishear him, he must forgive me. But I think I should stress that the Comptroller and Auditor General will not be appointed by the Crown but by the House of Commons. With those few further comments, I trust this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Audit Bill, is contented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Renton.)
8.59 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we are now on the Third Reading of this Bill, and may I therefore take up a moment or two to comment upon it? I rather missed my opportunity on Second Reading because matters seemed to go back to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rather quickly. It is a great pity that we have to deal with this Bill in this way. I know it is an extraordinary situation, but when important Bills get dropped in bundles of 10, the Finance Bill gets mauled about because the Opposition will not swallow it, and we have other Bills that are to be sent through your Lordships' House at high speed, it is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the nation's affairs and not a very dignified way in which to end a Parliament. I am concerned about this on those grounds.
This Bill has been quite a controversial one in another place and in the country, and noble Lords know that we have listened to and received representations from chairmen of nationalised industries about the provisions of this Bill. I think it has implications here which are of considerable importance. I can only speak as a one-time chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I saw something of its working and something of the working of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My worry about this is that it seems to create a new bureaucracy, or an additional bureaucracy, to audit business enterprise. If nationalised industries are going to remain the institutions that some of them have become, that would be a bad thing for the future of nationalised industries, but I rather fear that the audit of nationalised industries by bureaucracy is the wrong way round.
I think that private consulting accountants particularly should be auditing bureaucracy. I am not at all sure that this Bill is going to do the nationalised industries any good. I am not at all sure that it is going to produce any satisfactory result for Parliament to consider. What the nationalised industries require are
690
not so much auditors as consulting accountants, as my noble friend said, to see the business enterprise as a whole and not just be grubbing around with the routine of auditing, which comprises a good deal of the job of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those are my worries about this.
I can understand Members of another place wanting to reassure themselves of the way in which nationalised industries use public money. After all, a good deal of public money goes into them. A great many of them have huge deficits, which are made good out of public funds, and one naturally wonders whether they are running their affairs in a proper manner. But I think there is a big difference between state enterprises which are in business, which should be observing some of the conditions of profit and loss, should be conscious of how they are satisfying their customers, should have an idea, where they are not monopolies, how they are going to compete with rival services and all that kind of thing. But that is a very different job from the Board of Inland Revenue or the Department of Health and Social Security, or the Home Office and other departments, where the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General are very largely employed.
That is not to say for a single moment that they do not do very good work or make some very important discoveries. When I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and we had to look into serious misgivings about the production of Blue Streak by the Ferranti company, it was an executive officer in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department who had discovered the flaws in the costing arrangements in the firm that undertook the job, which eventually led to some very substantial refunds by the manufacturers of that particular missile.
That is all I have to say. I do not think the Bill should just be allowed to go through, as it were, on the nod when it has these implications. One is bound to submit to the view of Members of another place who looked at this from their point of view. One is bound to acknowledge that the Government have given it some scrutiny, and I believe the Bill has been amended a number of times to meet objections and suggestions that have been made from the Government side. I merely conclude by saying that I do not think in this particular respect this Bill is the right way of doing it. I think to some extent it represents the natural instincts of Members of another place to get their fingers on anything in the range of state enterprise, institutionalised or otherwise, but whether it produces either satisfactory results for the enterprise or reassurance to the public, I very much doubt. That is my view for what it is worth, and my experience at least qualifies me to add my opinion to those of others, including my noble friend, who looks at it more from a professional accountancy point of view than I do.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Broadcasting of Parliament (Annual Review) Bill
9.7 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do so with a good deal of trepidation, although it is a modest Bill, a very sensible

691
Bill and certainly a well-intentioned Bill; but I am aware that in the few hours that we have known about it, this Bill has aroused considerable anxiety. The anxieties are in no way political, but the Bill does affect the status of your Lordships' House. It falls to me to move the Second Reading because the Bill must come before this House, and convention requires that a Private Member's Bill which has passed through its stages in the other House should be moved by a Back-Bench friend in this House. I am the chosen instrument. I will not say that I drew the short straw, but the short straw was pushed out to me because I am a member of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, over which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, presides.
The Bill originated as a Ten Minute Rule Bill and was moved by the honourable Member for Goole, who did not even take 10 minutes. He took only six minutes just before the Budget Statement was introduced on 15th March, and I think we would all agree that this is a moment not likely to secure the Bill the greatest amount of notice.
The purpose of the Bill is simple. It proposes to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to make an annual report on the broadcasting of Parliament. My honourable friend believed that the provision of this machinery would keep the broadcasters on their toes and remind them that Parliament has sovereign power over the reporting of its own proceedings. It must be pointed out that the existing broadcasting committees of both Houses have the right and the power to meet together whenever they so wish, but it is unusual, and probably unprecedented, for a Joint Committee to be set up by legislation. It is also unprecedented to set up a Joint Committee with a majority from one House; we in this House would have an inferiority of one on the proposed committee.
The Bill does not take away any of the powers of the House over broadcasting of its proceedings. As I said, it is well-intentioned. But I must admit that it has hardly been discussed in the other place, and there is no real opportunity for discussing it here beyond this debate tonight.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ardwick.)
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, the House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for his description of the Bill in moving that it be read a second time. He did so with a certain amount of diffidence and raised many of the points which I feel I should bring to your Lordships' attention as to why your Lordships should not grant this Bill your approbation. I oppose it, firstly, because it is inappropriate; secondly, because it is unnecessary; and, thirdly, because it is undesirable. In moving that the Bill be read a second time the noble Lord referred to the fact that it had had very small consideration in the other place. I agree, because in searching through the Official Report of the other place I could find practically no reference to the Bill at all beyond about one column inch. Even bearing in mind the present haste in our parliamentary procedure, I must with great respect suggest that the Bill has not had the detailed thought that such a Bill should have.
We must do justice to the Bill, which is clearly intended to be part of our statute law. In this respect
692
we must pause to consider what we are doing and the responsibilities which lie upon us. To put it bluntly, should we include in our primary legislation an enactment regarding the appointment and the reporting procedures of a Joint Committee concerned solely with the internal administrative arrangements between the two Houses of Parliament? This is the sort of arrangement which is usually dealt with, and which has been dealt with, by simple Motions in the respective Houses, and not by statute law. As has already been mentioned, your Lordships in fact already have a committee for the purposes proposed in the Bill.
No, my Lords; surely we cannot possibly allow this. Quite apart from the detailed provisions in the Bill, which have also been referred to already, it will forever record in the laws of the land that your Lordships agree in a matter of exactly equal interest between both Houses that your Lordships accept an inferior position on the committee. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in regretting, but with great respect and even allowing for the end-of-term feeling currently prevailing, that such a Bill is in principle and in detail totally unsuited and unnecessary to be included as an Act of Parliament and part of the statute law of this realm.
To sum up, in my opinion the Bill is, first, inappropriate in that it is not a suitable subject for major legislation; secondly, it is unnecessary in that any objects which it wishes to achieve can easily be obtained by simple Motions in each House, as has been done in the past; and, thirdly, it is undesirable in that the suggested committee is not equitably constituted. With great respect, I suggest to your Lordships that a Second Reading is not granted to this Bill.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I think that I should speak on this because, in fact, I have tabled a manuscript amendment to be dealt with in Committee if this Bill receives its Second Reading. I also had to search through the Official Report of the other place to find out what had been said about this Bill there. As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has said, in fact only six minutes of a Ten-Minute Rule debate referred to the Bill at all, and in that no reference was made to the sort of machinery that could be included in the Bill. The reference was that "statutory machinery" would be used, but there was no reference to what that statutory machinery would be. That was on 15th March, just before the Budget.
On 15th April there was a formal Second Reading with nothing said by anyone; and on 11th May—that is, yesterday—the remaining stages were passed, with nothing said by anyone. So the Bill has come to this House undebated in another place and contains what I personally consider to be an insult in the form of the attempt to make your Lordships the junior members, as it were, of this statutory Joint Committee, with only four Members from your Lordships' House as against five Members from another place.
Therefore, the manuscript amendment which I have tabled for consideration, if by any chance your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, would create the parity which we ought to enjoy. In other words, I have suggested that there should be five

693
Members from your Lordships' House to equal the five Members from another place.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, on my track record your Lordships would expect me to welcome this Bill with open arms, as being some measure of restraint upon the BBC's powers in relation to reporting the proceedings of Parliament. But the other day on "Any Questions" the question was asked: Why is there not some restraint by Parliament on the BBC? It is clear from what other noble Lords have said in the debate so far that there are obvious technical problems in this Bill which cannot be overcome. Although there has been very little time, I have glanced hack at some of the debates which have taken place on this matter, and I have transcribed one sentence of a speech by the late Lord Egremont in which he said:
"We ought to do more ourselves to communicate more directly with all the people of the country who we seek in our endeavours here to serve".
That goes for me, but what have we here? In the last few months we have seen a heavy curtailment of the time given to the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament, and also a reduction in the number of people who listen to the broadcasts. Another sentence that I have lifted from a previous debate also applies:
"The newsworthiness and the importance of a debate are not necessarily the same thing".
I believe that that has a bearing upon the considerations that we give to what the BBC has done to our system in the last few months, and I look forward to hearing further views. Perhaps we may hear from the Government Front Bench. Accordingly, I await the end of the debate before deciding whether or not to support the Bill.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I would always wish to do my best to help my noble friend Lord Ardwick to get any Bill on the statute book. Having myself had some experience, I know of the great difficulties that there are in doing such a thing. Usually any old Bill which my noble friend wished to introduce would do—except this one. We are in the unusual position of having from another place Bills which do not bear the inscription of the place from which they come. What the Bills tell us is who is moving them. Sometimes it is more important to know more about who is moving a Bill, than what they are moving. When I look at who were the sponsors of the Bill in another place. I see that among them are some individuals who would abolish your Lordships altogether if they get the chance, and three of them at least, I shall predict, will not be in the next Parliament. We cannot really accept this kind of legacy from such a nondescript source. I sincerely hope that we shall say that with the greatest regret the Bill cannot proceed at this hour, in this way, since in another place it has not gone through with the benefit of really serious discussion.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord who complained that your Lordships cannot submit to an inferior position on a joint committee with another place. We are—well, I need not pursue that point; it is so obvious. Whatever possessed them to think of putting such a
694
proposal in the Bill I do not know. Looking at the names, I wonder who did it. I would hesitate to draw attention to some of the individuals who are sponsors of the Bill.
No, we do not need this, my Lords. As was pointed out a moment or two ago, we have our own committee. From this Chamber we have a different appeal to make to the listening public when compared with the other Chamber. We are more courteous. The standard of our debates is so much higher. We are so much more civilised. People think, "If we could only be run by the House of Lords, how much better the country would be"—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: When people listen to the noise from another place, they wonder what sort of rabble there is down there. Why then should we join with them in some joint enterprise to consider how we should best present ourselves to the public, or communicate with them? My Lords, we have our own technique. We have our own style. We have our own appeal; and we are in an entirely different position from the other place. As I said to noble friends around me, we are about to be sent on an enforced holiday, with no praise, no pay, and no prospects. This is a dismal condition in which to say goodbye to this Parliament.
I could go on, my Lords, but the hour is late. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I have been hanging about all day in order to pour a lot of cold water over the last remnants of the dying Parliament on things which have drifted, blown down, the corridor from elsewhere. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ardwick will undestand the muted reception that I am giving to his Bill. I feel that our parting shot to the dying Parliament and the legacy from another place should be, "Sorry chaps, it can't be done in this sort of way".
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not know how one follows that. I know that we are anxious to hear the views of the Government Front Bench, but I think that a word or two should be heard from these Benches in support of what has been stated from the Cross-Benches. There has been one exception to the almost invariable practice of having on Joint Select Committees equal numbers from both Houses. That was the Joint Committee of some years ago on House of Lords reform where it was desired to have a Law Lord as chairman. That gave your Lordships a majority of one on the Committee. No such consideration arises here. We should surely observe the general rule of equal numbers.
I turn from the four members to the four months mentioned in the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Committee shall report not later than four months after its appointment. Where you get legislation, you get rigiditv We might be up against a situation where something needed to be considered by the Committee that was complicated, difficult and also urgent. Parliament might wish that fewer than four months should be spent and that the Committee should report, say, in three months. However, the Committee might say, "No. This is complicated. We need our four months

695
and an Act of Parliament has given us four months". Legislation would be required for Parliament to be able to impose its will and reduce the period to three months. That would seem to me a very good reason for not trying to do this by Act of Parliament, but in the ordinary way of passing Messages between the two Houses.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is normal for someone who speaks from this Dispatch Box on a Private Member's Bill to give guidance to the House on whether the Bill should be accepted. I am afraid however that I must disappoint your Lordships. Traditionally, the broadcasting of Parliament is a matter that the Government leave to the two Houses. It is therefore not for me from this Bench to advise your Lordships either to accept or to reject this Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was rather against Joint Committees of any kind between the two Houses. Here, I must disagree with him. At the moment, we have two Joint Committees, one dealing with Consolidation Bills and the other with Statutory Instruments. These are set up under the Standing Orders of the two Houses.
A similar Committee to that envisaged in this Bill could or course be set up in this way. The Bill is therefore not necessary, as some of your Lordships have pointed out. It is also possibly a rather inflexible way of proceeding. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has stated from the Liberal Benches, any change required to be made in a Bill set up by an Act of Parliament would require another Act of Parliament to do so. Having said that, it is up to the House to decide.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like as a humble Back Bencher to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time to thank my noble friend the Chief Whip not only for his eloquent speech but also for the fact that it could be a maiden speech apart from his remark of dinners being available. I should like to thank him on behalf of all noble Lords for guiding us through this term of Parliament and to wish him well.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think, in order to put my noble friend in order, in making those few remarks before I sat down, I should like to thank him very much for the kindness that he has shown.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, just as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, regretted that he could not give me warmer support for the Bill, I regret that I cannot give a more enthusiastic backing to it on behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Goole. I should like to acquit him of any charge of wanting to insult the House. He simply got it wrong. He must have been thinking of the differential proportion of members for the Council of Europe. That difference is totally unacceptable on a joint committee.
I still think that the idea contains a certain amount of virtue and that it should be considered by the two committees. They should consider in the new Parliament whether it might be useful to get together and issue a joint report, but there is no need for a Bill for that purpose. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is rather late. I have spoken to the Front Benches of all the other three parties in the House and to those individual Lords who, I know, are interested in the Bill. All are agreed that it would be equally convenient to take it tomorrow. If the Government Chief Whip would be kind enough to signify his assent, I propose not to move that the Report be considered at this moment, but to move it tomorrow as last business.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that that would be possible. Obviously this Bill cannot get anywhere. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue it in this way, then perhaps tomorrow would be as convenient as tonight.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

Litter Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at half past nine o'clock.