Lords Sitting of 10 May 1984

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

Consumer Council Guidelines
The 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 in view of their answer on 2nd February (col. 760) that they are "dealing first with the proposals from the two largest NICC groups, the electricity and gas industries" they will state the progress made on these guidelines which affect consumer councils of nationalised industries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, draft guidelines have been prepared in the light of proposals from the National Gas Consumers Council and the Electricity Consumers Council for consideration by the councils in consultation with the industries concerned.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that reply really is not very satisfactory and that, personally, I hope he may feel the same? Is he aware that in his reply to me on 2nd February he said, at col. 760, that his honourable friend—that is, Mr. Alex Fletcher—is in earnest in getting on with this important matter? Arising from that, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I have very recently made what inquiries are possible among the people concerned and that I am informed that there has been no progress at all, that no discussions at all have taken place, and that one person finally said to me—and I think this would be unfortunate for the Government—that he thinks the Government would like it all just to fade away?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness's interest in this matter but, with respect to her, there has been a good deal of progress. The fact is that the responses of the nationalised industries' consumers' councils on these guidelines varied a good deal in content and structure between the five main councils, and the aim of the Department of Trade and Industry has been to produce concise drafts with a recognisable common framework. If I can be a little more forthcoming than I was in my original Answer, may I say that I hope the guidelines for the gas and the electricity consumers' councils to discuss with their industries are going to be sent to those councils literally within the next few days.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that I believe that in company with me (if he does not mind my saying
1008
that) he wishes to make some progress in this matter? I should like to ask him whether he could let me have a copy of the letter which is to be sent. I have been disturbed at the lack of progress which is reported to me by the people concerned.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, what is much more to the point is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is anxious to get on with this, and on his behalf I will give an undertaking that I will let the noble Baroness know when the communication is sent to those two nationalised industries. So far as the exact content of the papers is concerned, they are still drafts for discussion by the consumers' councils concerned with the two industries, and I think I must ask the department, and Mr. Alex Fletcher in particular, whether he would feel that it was right to show these particular documents in public at the present time. I feel sure that Mr. Fletcher will be as helpful as possible.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask
why there is this extraordinary delay? I had something to do with consumers' councils some years ago, and one was able to push the thing on quite hard. The department responded, and on the whole it worked very well. It seems now that the delays go on and on. Surely it is possible to make the thing work a bit faster.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it took a little time to get the replies back from the nationalised industries' consumers' councils. The last ones were received in October of last year. I repeat that what was found then was that the responses varied a good deal both in their content and in their structure. In order to try to achieve the objective of getting for the five main nationalised industries' consumers' councils guidelines which in the interests of consumers would be more or less in similar form for people to recognise, a good deal of redrafting has had to be done. The purpose of my answers today to the noble Baroness opposite is to give the assurance, which I have done, that in the next few days those guidelines will be going to the electricity and gas consumers' councils.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the House will appreciate the assurances he has been able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Burton? Will he please give us an assurance that he will inform the House as soon as possible as to the progress that is being made in these matters?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can give an assurance that there will be a Government Statement on this matter. Noble Lords have had their fill of Government Statements in the past few weeks; but I feel sure that in the near future the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will be putting down some form of further probing Question.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in order to show the Minister how very reasonable I am, may I ask him whether he is aware that all that the people concerned are wanting at the moment—in particular, the electricity and gas consumers' councils, never mind the other three he has mentioned—is some discussion and some progress? They are not expecting a decision, but they would like a discussion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in order to prove how reasonable and understanding I am on behalf of the Government, perhaps I may repeat the assurance that very shortly the basis for that discussion will be in the hands of those consumers' councils.

Retirement Pension
3.13 p.m.
Lord Stallard: 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 at what level the retirement pension would have stood today if it had been up-rated in line with earnings or prices, whichever has been greater, since 1979.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the retirement pension had been increased in line with prices or average earnings, whichever was the greater, since November 1979, the rate as at November 1983 would be £35.90 for a single person and £57.45 for a married couple.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she recall that last week we were told that the death grant, if it were increased in line with inflation, would be £165 instead of £30? We know from a previous reply that the changes in the age allowance meant that a married couple lost £81 a year in income tax. From a reply given yesterday I learnt that the earnings limit, to keep in line with inflation, should now be £74 instead of £65. Now the noble Baroness tells me that the pension itself should be £57.45 instead of £54. Does it not almost amount to a vendetta against the elderly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not say that it "should be", I said that it "would be". The Government are pledged to maintain the value of retirement pensions and associated long-term benefits, and that has been achieved. Between November 1978 and November 1983, prices rose by 68–8 per cent. while pensions rose by 74–6 per cent.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what was the increase in the retirement pension at its last pegging last May or June, and at the same time what was the inflation rate during the comparable period?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, not without notice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that she is speaking simply about the basic pension and that for those in need there are considerable additional supplementary benefits and also considerable assistance in the form, for example, of National Health treatment and so on?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her question. As my noble friend will know, there is help with heating costs, which in 1983–84 reached a record level. There is
1010
assistance as regards the insulation of hot water tanks. The full implementation of housing benefit from April 1983 benefited over 1 million pensioners with incomes marginally above supplementary pension levels. There are many other points that I could bring to the notice of your Lordships.
Lord Banks: My Lords, if pensions have increased by less than the increase in earnings, as the figures given by the noble Baroness have made clear, does it not mean that pensioners are now receiving a lower percentage of the total paid out in earnings and pensions than they were in 1979?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have maintained the purchasing power, which is the most important thing from the pensioner's point of view, and they have promised to do better as the economic situation improves.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept from me that the increase in pensions over the past year from the last time that they were pegged was less than the increase in the inflation rate during that comparable period? If that is so, how does the noble Baroness justify her claim that the Government have maintained the purchasing power of the pension?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have just given the figure of 68.8 per cent. for price rises and 74.6 per cent. for pension increases. I should have thought that that was clear even to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that the linking of pensions to the retail price index rather distorts the budget of most old-age pensions because many of the items that come into the retail price index are not particularly relevant to elderly people? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government are giving any consideration to this point? While old-age pensioners are linked to an index which includes gin and fur coats we shall not get a very realistic idea.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the retail price index is used because it has been shown time after time to be the most reliable and comprehensive measure of price movements as they affect the generality of households. Other indices have been considered, but all have limitations. Of course, the major part of the retail price index concerns the price of food.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the Government give any consideration to using the family earnings or salary to construct a special cost of living index applicable to pensioners? The answer may turn out to be to the Government's advantage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Lord. The Government's commitment to the interests of pensioners has been demonstrated over and over again, and indeed a special inquiry into the provision for retirement has been set up and is being chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the conclusions reached by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government Actuary that, unless pensioners receive an increase above the rate of inflation, they will start to lag behind the rest of the population?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, the most important aspect for pensioners is that their pensions remain above the price of goods.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the noble Baroness share the view that the best definition of poverty is that as perceived by people on the lowest level of incomes; namely, that they should share proportionately in the same increase in the standard of living as the rest of the population, and if they fall behind that, then their sense of poverty is increased? Therefore, is it not the deliberate policy of the Government at the present time to increase the perception of poverty?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that definition of poverty is quite the longest that I, at least, have ever heard in my life?

Adult Education Grants
3.20 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 why they are reducing grants to the Workers' Educational Association and the extra-mural departments of the universities.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, these modest reductions are part of the Government's general strategy to constrain public expenditure. Fees paid by the students concerned average little more than 50 pence per hour and meet only a small proportion of the total costs. With increased fee income from those who can afford to pay and some marginal improvement in cost effectiveness, the adult education programmes of these bodies should not need to be cut back.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is he aware that, although the cuts may not be enormous in financial terms, they mean a great deal to the people involved? These cuts will mean that in particular those living in the rural areas and the disadvantaged—the poorer members of the community—will suffer disproportionately? Fees have already increased by up to 50 per cent. and more and are, therefore, likely to increase and only the affluent middle classes will be able to benefit from these classes.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would disagree with the noble Baroness on that matter. After all, we are talking about fees which average little more than 50 pence per hour. 1 do not think that one could go to the cinema, a football match or anywhere else for that expenditure.
Lord Plant: My Lords, does the noble Earl support what, in similar circumstances, Sir Winston Churchill wrote to the TUC in 1953 when he said:
"There is perhaps no branch of our vast educational system which should more attract within its particular sphere the aid and encouragement of the state than adult education"?
Will the noble Earl also agree that in these troubled times it is unfortunate that this voluntary body, whose aim is to encourage people how to think and not what to think, should face a vicious cut of 8 per cent. on the £2 million grant that it has enjoyed hitherto?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord's final point about the vicious cut. Expenditure on grants to the WEA districts and extra-mural departments in the financial year 1983–84 totalled £7–56 million; at 1983–84 price levels a grant of £7 million is planned for the academic year 1986–87—that is, a reduction averaging less than 2·5 per cent. per year. That can hardly be described as a vicious cut. The Government are extremely concerned about the adult education programme generally, and they have to target limited resources where they consider that they are most needed, and particularly where valuable new developments can result. So the Government are spending more on adult education and they support the WEA. In fact, in a letter last month the department promised to provide additional grant towards the training of tutors and voluntary organisers in the districts, together with a small grant to the WEA HQ for co-ordinating the work. So the Government are still firmly in support of the WEA.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the noble Earl making the case that these savings are as trivial as they are offensive?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would agree that they are trivial. I would not agree that they are offensive.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, speaking as someone who was actually engaged under the auspices of the WEA, may I move slightly outside the WEA but still remain within the confines of adult education, and ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the services supplied by the Open University to prisoners are now being cut by the present Government?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, not only am I delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was engaged in that way, but I am particularly pleased to see him back in our midst after having missed him for so long. The matter of Open University grants is a different question. If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would like to put down a Question on the Order Paper, I should be delighted to answer it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, although the noble Earl tells the House that the Government are spending more on adult education, can he tell us what standard of comparison he is using? What is it more than?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is more than has been spent in the past.

Cruise Missiles: Firing Control
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 aware that the United States Government deny the Prime Minister's claim to possess a veto over the firing of American cruise missiles based in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the position is as stated by my right honourble friend the Prime Minister:
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col. 435.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that on occasions the Prime Minister has seemed to go further than that and to assert the existence of a British veto? Is he not further aware that no American official has confirmed the existence of such a veto? Indeed, it has been specifically denied on a number of occasions by the Secretary of State's department, by, among others, Mr. Paul Volcker. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister went to the United States of America for the purpose of obtaining a twin-key arrangement, and failed to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, "No". As my right honourable friend has said, as I have said and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the fact is
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that in the situation of a declaration of war, where, by decisions made in seconds, millions of lives on one side or the other may be lost, real discussion is impossible and the use of a veto is impossible? Is that not emphasised by the fact that at Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles are based, the supreme command is in American hands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that we had a debate on that matter some months ago, when I described the position there in some detail. The fact remains that none of the nuclear weapons referred to in this country can be fired without the agreement of the British Prime Minister. If that is not a veto, I do not know what is.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord would assist the House greatly if he could say what is the written authority for saying what he has just said. Is he aware that the House knows that he has repeated this on several occasions, and that so has his right honourable friend? Is it the case that he and she are both relying on the 1952 communiqué? If that is the document on which they are relying is he aware that that certainly does not give a firm right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the 1952 communiqué is certainly one of the documents that set out the facts in this matter, but, as the noble Lord will also recall, the circumstances of this arrangement are reviewed each time a United States President or a British Prime Minister comes into office. That has been done on each of those occasions since 1952. Incidentally, the matter was additionally reviewed at the time of the decision relating to the basing of cruise missiles in this country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said, when he indicated that, as we know, this matter is reviewed by a new President and a new Prime Minister. But have any of the reviews since 1952 changed the situation in any way? Is it not the case that the authority remains the same, if it be an authority: that the wording of 1952 still remains without change? In that case, will he not agree that that does not provide a right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: On the contrary, my Lords, I believe that the 1952 communique provides proper authority for the matter to which I have referred, which, as I have said, has in addition repeatedly been confirmed since then.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would it not clear matters up if the noble Lord were to quote from some official United States statement which is more recent than 1952 conceding that, in fact, these weapons cannot be fired without the British Prime Minister's consent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I know that the American President confirmed that a year or so ago.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend seriously believe that an obligation to obtain agreement is precisely the same as a veto? If the person agreeing does not have the power to disagree, it can hardly be described as a veto.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister does have the power to disagree.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government given any consideration to the possibly unlikely eventuality that in a stress of excitement which might occur these weapons are fired off without waiting for explicit agreement of the British Prime Minister? What is to happen then?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fertile imagination of noble Lords opposite sometimes leaves me somewhat breathless, but I can assure the noble Lord that the arrangements have been examined very carefully and that the effect of the arrangements and of the undertakings we have is as I described in my original Answer.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the important question is not whether we think we have a veto, but whether the Russians think we have a veto, because if they do not think we have a veto and the matter is left void they will be

1015
tempted, as lies in their immediate capacity, to take out this threat to them on their own initiative? And that taking out is going to be very painful for us.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that, if I may say so, strays rather far from the matter that we have been discussing. But the fact of the matter is that these weapons are of course part of our deterrent posture, and the whole purpose of them is to ensure that nobody seeks to take anybody else out.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord states with increasing confidence that we have the right of veto. Will he give us the American authority and the date of that authoritative statement on which he bases that confidence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have just given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when I referred to the original communique and to the various re-examinations of that communique which have been made from time to time.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord is hedging. We are asking about a veto on the firing of cruise missiles. I am asking the noble Lord to give me the American authority, and the date on which that authority assured us that we have the right of veto?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I again said just now, this matter was reviewed at the time of the decision for the basing of these missiles in this country. The arrangements were found then to be satisfactory both to the United States and to the United Kingdom, and the effect of those understandings is as I have already said.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give me the date of that review?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I perhaps conclude this matter by asking the noble Lord whether he is aware that, in the television interview to which he referred, the American President did not in fact confirm the right to veto. What he said was, "That constitutes", referring to the 1952 agreement, "a sort of veto, doesn't it?" He was subsequently told by his own officials that it did not constitute a veto.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I prefer to rely upon the words of the President.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned for
1016
dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will be taken. The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 and the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 will be taken at the end of the day's business.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the provisions of Part III of the Finance Act 1975 and other enactments relating to capital transfer tax. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Barclays Bank Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Cardiff City Council Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

London Regional Transport Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the London Regional Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 40,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 41 to 61,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 62 to 66,

Schedules 5 to 7.

—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environ-ment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reason be now considered.—(LordBellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
References to the Bill are to Bill (100). The Commons amendments and Reason are printed in italics. The amendment to page 3, line 12, referred to in the Commons Reason as (No. 11) is to be found at Amendment No. 11.]
Amendment No.

LORDS AMENDMENT
1Clause 1, page 2, line 5, after ("or") insert ("save where the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
2Page 83, line 6, leave out ("shared ownership lease") and insert ("lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act").
3Page 83, line 16, leave out ("shared ownership lease") and insert ("lease in pursuance of Part I of this Act").
4Page 83, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) Where, in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1 A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to—

(a)a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

(b)a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and

(c)where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.").

The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk rose to move:
4A That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof with the following Amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 4:
Line 1, at end insert—
("(3 A) The provisions of Part I of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part 1 of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act, nor to a sub-tenancy derived (whether directly or indirectly) from that tenancy, in any case where the landlord is a registered Housing Association and the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment at the Committee stage and we carried it by a large majority. This amendment was, however, refused by the House of Commons and they put in what I regard as a minor point in that they raised the rate of compensation which might take place. This is a different amendment and a much narrower amendment indeed. First of all, it leaves out the problem of Dulwich altogether. That is to say, the householders in Dulwich can buy their houses under this Bill from the Southwark authority and can afterwards use the 1967 Act for enfranchisement from the freeholder. Dulwich, I understand, are perfectly happy to sell, and I can leave it at that.
When the other place discussed our amendment they said that the position of universities was indeed important and not very easy. What they did, as I said, was simply to raise the compensation of enfranchisement and nothing else; that is to say, it leaves the position substantially unchanged. This is not a problem of compensation; it is a problem of the development of our great universities. That is really the only point which we are considering at the present time.
The Government said that they already had a system which would answer this point. I want to deal with this fairly fully to show that to my mind the system is unsatisfactory. It is highly complicated, bureaucratic, highly centralised, and uncertain in its results, and I hope that I shall show that that is unsatisfactory to everybody concerned. May I explain the process which will be gone through under this Bill. First of all the tenant would exercise his right to buy from the landlord. That remains untouched in this amendment. Thereafter he would enfranchise his lease from the freeholder, which would be one of the universities.
What will inevitably happen, indeed is already happening now—and I believe in a number of cases—is that the freeholder will ask the Secretary of State to give him a covenant on the building, which in fact will be a real obligation; that is, if he sells the building the obligation will indeed continue.
But now we come to the crux of the situation which has never yet happened. How will the Secretary of State fulfil the terms of the covenant? He will take what will inevitably be a wholly arbitrary action. He has to decide whether he will grant the freeholder, or the former freeholder, the right compulsorily to acquire this house or whether he will refuse it. That immediately raises the situation of complete insecurity, both for the freeholder and for the tenant.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to give people security in houses which they own. Immediately under this process that is completely undermined. The freeholder does not know whether he will get his land back and the tenant does not know whether he will be turned out. This is an unsatisfactory situation; it is neither clear nor known. I believe one used to say that equity was as long as the Lord Chancellor's foot. Here the security is just as long as the Secretary of State's foot or any other part of his body. We do not know who the Secretary of State will be. This process will take place in 40 or 50 years' time (it could be more or less) and we have no idea who the Secretary of State will be. We have not the slightest idea what decision he

1019
will make. It will be a very difficult decision for him to make, I appreciate that, but it leaves all the people concerned—a comparatively small number— uncertain as to how they stand.
I should like to explain what this amendment does, what its purpose is and how it will be carried out. I hope I shall be able to explain that it meets the central point, first, of giving security to the tenant and certainty to the freeholder. Secondly, it will enable the Secretary of State to avoid having to use the power of compulsory purchase of a private house. In any circumstances that is a most disagreeable thing to have to do.
I am suggesting in the amendment that the tenant should use the right to buy as laid down in the Bill. That remains unchanged. He would then have what might be termed the landlord's position of a leasehold where probably the rent will be less and he will have assured tenure for a longer period. That is greatly to the advantage of the tenant. The university retains the freehold and everyone then knows exactly where he stands. If there is any rule which is important in land tenure it is to know exactly where one stands, what the liabilities are and how long one is likely to be there.
At present the arrangement made by universities is extremely good: The colleges in certain cases—I cannot speak for every one—went to the local authority to explain that they had land that they would not need for a long period and asked "What socially, and otherwise, is the most desirable use for that land? How should we use it?" An agreement was reached between the local authority, the university and the housing association and it was decided that to build houses was the most useful thing to do. I think most noble Lords would agree with that. It would be the proper thing to do and the land was given for a long tenure which the university could take back and on the grounds that the university could put in one-third of the tenants, the town council one-third and the housing association one-third. This is the arrange-ment, which I am given to understand is working extremely well, and is the system which I am suggesting in this amendment. I believe that in these circumstances that would be very much more satisfactory for all concerned in this arrangement.
I want to add one other word. Any cavalier treatment of charity is extremely dangerous. Charities play an enormous part in this country in the back-up of education, of health services, of what you will. I remember the late Lord Beveridge, perhaps 30 years ago, speaking and writing on this—the value of voluntary service, most of which is charitable work. This is an essential back-up to the whole of the welfare state. I will not go into detail, but we should perhaps consider the situation if some of the great charities today were not playing their part in helping us in the modern society which we have built up.
It is dangerous to disregard or in any way to trample on charities as they stand. We are not considering a large number of houses, but we are talking about houses in an essential and, in many cases, central area of our great university towns. They are therefore of great importance. I am not a Cambridge man, but Cambridge, among others, has been doing its job for
1020
some 700 years. Do they not know better than the Ministry of the Environment how the place should be developed? Is it not better for Cambridge to make the decisions which matter?
I end by saying that this gives greater security to the householder and the freeholder. It avoids having compulsory acquisition laid on them by the Secretary of State at any time. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof with Amendment No. 4A to the Commons Amendment No. 4.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if this Motion is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 4B.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to concentrate particularly on the charitable aspect of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. There will always be 20 to 25 per cent. of people in this country who will require rented accommodation. This is not my view; it is the view of one of our leading building societies, which deals with private property and house sales all the time. This is the level of rented accommo-dation which it feels will always be required.
As the stock of local authority housing is being run down, or certainly reduced, which is perhaps a better word, we shall rely more and more on housing associations and on charitable institutions to provide rented accommodation. Certainly charitable land will become more and more important. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has concentrated particularly on Cambridge. It is true that the charitable land in Cambridge is particularly important for the provision of accommodation in that town, but there are other towns and other charities where the provision of land, and the feeling of the charity that that land is secure in the long term, are extremely important for the supply of accommodation both rented and for sale in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has outlined.
There has always been widespread support for the protection of charities in this House and not only in this House. When the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was under discussion I understand that a large number of Conservatives voted in favour of an amendment to exclude charities at that time. Included among their number was a certain Mrs. Thatcher and a certain Mr. Heseltine. I do not think that many Conservatives will have gone back from that situation.
I should have liked to see the suggestion of the noble Earl go a little further. I should have liked to see an amendment that produced retrospective elements in some of the legislation before us but I appreciate that this is not possible or acceptable. This amendment is a good compromise and from our side of the House we will support it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I think that it will be for the convenience of the House for me to speak now to Amendment No. 4B which stands in my name and which cannot be called if the amendment now before the House is passed.
Amendment No. 4B: That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, that they disagree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Commons Amendments:
Page 82, line 46, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
("1.—(1) The provisions of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) shall not apply to a tenancy to which this sub-paragraph applies.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to—

(a)a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

(b)a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (a) above; and

(c)where in any case Part I of the said Act of 1967 applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy.").

My noble friend's amendment seeks to exclude the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act from long leases where the landlord is a residents' housing association and the ultimate freeholder is a charity. My amendment would seek to exclude the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 from any right-to-buy lease created under this Bill or the 1980 Act. Your Lordships' amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill had one direct object and one indirect effect. The direct object of the amendment was to decline to extend to tenants of public landlords whose ultimate freeholders are charities any right to buy long leases of their homes. The indirect, knock-on, effect with which both amendments are chiefly concerned this afternoon was to preclude the expropriation under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, on any terms, of the ultimate freeholders provided that the freeholders are charities.
I would agree that the direct object of the original amendment was ill-advised because it deprived some public-sector tenants of the right to buy long leases of their homes from their landlords on the altogether irrelevant grounds that their ultimate freeholders were charities. To have insisted on this amendment would have perpetuated and compounded the anomaly between the treatment of one public-sector tenant whose landlord is a freeholder and the treatment of another tenant whose landlord is itself a leasehold tenant by creating the sub-distinction between the case where the freeholder is a charity and the case where it is not. Such anomalies can only cause feelings of unfairness in the tenants affected by them, and in the absence of grounds of principle for retaining them I see every reason in this clause of the Bill to be rid of these anomalies altogether.
This is recognised both in my noble friend's amendment and in my amendment. Neither amendment would deprive a public-sector tenant whose landlord is itself a lessee, of the right to buy a long lease under the Bill. So we both accept the force of the reasoning which led the other place to reject the direct object of the original amendment. It is only when we come to the indirect effect of that amendment and the manner in which the other place propose that it should be dealt with that difficulties arise between me and the Amendment-in-lieu, No. 4, proposed to us by the other place, to which I now turn.
Concern was expressed here, at various stages of the Bill's passage, at the consequential effect of Clause 1 of the Bill. When a lease of a house is created under the right-to-buy provisions of the original Bill, the tenant, after three years' continued residence in the house, will have the right—not under the Bill but under the Leasehold Reform Act—to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the house. If the tenant chose to acquire the freehold or the extended lease, the price or the rent would be calculated according to a formula which could only be justified as a pragmatic measure introduced to alleviate hardship. This was the 1967 Act and the late 1960s were days of pragmatic measures. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, during the debate on my noble friend's original amendment, reminded us of the miners or miners' widows who were then, in 1967, having to leave their homes because their century-old leases were up. That was the situation of hardship then seen to exist. I venture to doubt that the noble Baroness would hold much of a brief now for the adoption in this Bill of the terms of compensation which freeholders were given in 1967; or that she would see much hardship suffered by right-to-buy tenants. But those are the terms of compensation which would have fallen to the lot of a freeholder under the original provisions of the Bill.
The editors of Woodfall, a respected treatise on the law of landlord and tenant, have this to say about the original 1967 terms of compensation:
"The editors of this and the last previous edition of this book have found it quite impossible to relate"—
what amounts to the 1967 terms of compensation—
"to any principle of valuation or of fair dealing between landlord and tenant known to them, and therefore present this as an arbitrary rule laid down by Parliament for some reason extraneous to the matters considered in this work".
The concern expressed in this House at the unfair terms of compensation was taken up and accepted in the other place; and Amendment No. 4 seeks to provide a fairer price for a freeholder.
However, I have to tell your Lordships that I do not think that the amendment has got it right. The amendment adopts for this Bill a valuation formula which was carried into the 1967 Act by a Conservative Opposition amendment in another place to the Housing Act 1974; and in my view the 1974 amendment did not have it right even then. The 1974 formula would indeed provide fairer terms for compensation for a tenant if he acquired a freehold under the 1967 Act. Unfortunately, the formula can generally be evaded by a well-advised tenant. It happens in this way. The 1967 Act provides two routes by which a long-leaseholder wishing to profit from the Act may benefit and the formula applies to only one of them. That way is when the tenant acquires a freehold. The formula does not apply to the case where the tenant acquires a 50-year extension of his lease at an up-to-date ground rent.
If this Bill goes through, as amended by the other place, any right-to-buy lessee can add 50 years to his lease; the rent for the 50 years would be a rent for the ground alone and nothing for the house built on it. This is because of the old 1967 Act assumption that the lessee owns the house and the landlord owns only the land. This is the valuation basis to which the editors of Woodfall take exception, and so do I. A

1023
freeholder—be it a Cambridge college, or anyone else—if asked for an extended lease would suffer a substantial and unwarranted diminution in the value of his property; and the amendment from the other place does nothing about this at all. I have given my noble friend the Minister notice of my concern on this point, and if he thinks that I have got it hopelessly wrong he will, I feel sure, tell the House so. But if I am right, a coach and horses can be driven around the 1974 formula and Amendment No. 4 is really of not great value. The other place ought to be given another look at this clause. This means that your Lordships ought today to accept one or other of the two amendments now before you.
I come now to my own amendment, about the substance of which I have little to say now. The arguments are well known. But I will say this. You may dress up the contrary argument in any fashion you wish. The fact will remain that, unless the other place are given a chance to reconsider this matter, this will prove to be, as far as I can ascertain, the first occasion on which a Conservative Administration has passed legislation providing for the expropriation of private property by a private lessee of his private landlord. In case any noble Lord feels that I am too concerned with the interests of freeholders, I would say this. The right-to-buy tenant who will lose his right to acquire his freehold if my amendment is passed will not be much worse off financially. The reason for this is that the value of the right-to buy lease to be granted to a public-sector tenant will reflect the fact that the tenant will have no rights under the 1967 Act and the price to be paid for the lease will be that much less. I have great sympathy with my noble friend's amendment. For myself, I see no reason why the patrimony of Oxford and Cambridge colleges should be taken away from them under the Leashold Reform Act. Nevertheless, I am not sure that I can support him. It is not just that I feel that the best is the enemy of the good; but his amendment is, I am afraid, unduly restrictive in its operation even as regards charitable freeholders. I think it will be seen as opaque in the manner in which it sets about achieving its end, and likely to create unfair and anomalous conditions when it comes to finding out exactly who are the freeholders of charities; and who are the tenants whose landlords are not registered housing associations but whose ultimate freeholders are charities. My amendment is wider in its operation than that of my noble friend, but is covers his and it protects colleges in the same way as his does. I hope, therefore, that when my noble friend has listened to the debate and heard all the arguments he will find it possible to withdraw his amendment and allow your Lordships to come to their conclusion on the basis of mine.
To my noble friend the Minister I would say one thing. If he agrees that the other place have not got it right and should have the opportunity to have another look at this one, would he not also agree that if my noble friend does not press his amendment he (the Minister) should not stand in the way of mine?
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I rise to support the infant amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I do so on two grounds, in the hope that
1024
either the Government or this House will adopt the infant, which is a very small and well-deserving one. It is a very small one because it protects only the freehold interests of a charity which has entered into a lease with a housing association: it is deserving because in those cases there will not have been the necessary hard bargaining which would have taken place between two commercial entities.
To give the House an example which I put to the noble Minister and which I hope he will deal with in due course, one of the Cambridge colleges in which I am not uninterested—not in a pecuniary fashion, but only in a sentimental and loyal fashion—entered into negotiations with a housing association and with the City of Cambridge for their joint benefit to develop a site which the college owned. In all those negotiations and valuations regard was had to the fact that the development was intended to help newly-married couples and elderly persons; it was intended to help the college to get nominations for the accommodation they required; and it was intended to help the City of Cambridge, whose housing problems were of course rendered worse by pressure from the university for more and more accommodation. In those negotiations, not only did the college in its valuations not seek to obtain the highest possible price, but, in addition, after negotiations had ended the college supplied money to provide communal facilities in the development which was proposed.
If the Commons amendments are accepted it will undoubtedly mean not only that the college's interests will be bought at a price which does not adequately reflect the value to them of the property or of their interest in it, but it will also destroy the effect of the tripartite arrangements between the college, the city and the housing association. The Minister has very kindly replied to the example I gave him, and he says that the college will now get more compensation as a result of the amendments made by the Commons. That compensation is still inadequate, but, more importantly, this is not merely a question of finance but a question of policy. The college does not wish to see destroyed these beneficial arrangements that it has with the housing association and the City of Cambridge.
The Minister also makes the point that under various provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 the college could obtain a stop on any compulsory purchase if it had plans to develop within 10 years. But, of course, the whole object of this transaction is not limited to 10 years. Charities are bodies which can think in terms of a hundred years ahead. The redevelopment has taken place already, and it is the existing position which the charities wish to safeguard.
I come back to where I began; namely, that this is a very minor amendment and affects only those few cases where a charity has entered into an arrangement with a housing association. There cannot be many such cases; but in every case there was a good reason for the arrangement being made, and in every case there cannot have been the same commercial approach as there would have been between an ordinary freeholder and a commercial leaseholder. On those grounds, I commend the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I have no wish to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, or the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in going back to who said what to whom regarding the Leasehold Reform Bill in 1967 in another place, although in fact I took part in those debates. I speak in your Lordships' House as a member of a party which has not had a recent opportunity of reneging on any manifesto commitments, and to that extent I am perhaps privileged, as against noble Lords opposite and noble Lords who speak for the official Opposition. I rise merely to indicate that my noble friends on these Benches will support the noble Earl's amendment, although we think it right to say that we would have preferred the amendment which was passed so overwhelmingly in your Lordships' House, which went to another place and which has now been bounced back in a somewhat different form. Since we cannot have that, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his amendment, and we will indeed support it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I first explain why the Government recommended the Commons to disagree with the original amendment? The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to extend the right to buy to tenants who would have the right under the 1980 Act but for the fact that their landlord has a leasehold rather than a freehold interest in the land on which the house or flat is built. Time and the technicalities associated with leasehold tenure prevented provisions of this kind being included in the 1980 Act. We therefore included in our manifesto for the 1983 election a firm pledge to extend the right to buy to tenants in cases where the landlord does not own the freehold.
Let me explain in some depth, because I think it is necessary so to do, why I believe that the arguments advanced against Clause 1 are essentially unjustified, as well as indicating why we have brought forward a compromise proposal. Tenants of houses who obtain the right to buy under Clause 1 will, if they qualify in other respects, be able to buy their freeholds under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, in moving his amendment at Committee stage, relied heavily on the fact that this consequential right to buy the freehold would adversely affect Cambridge colleges which had leased land for building by non-charitable housing associations, and of course the same point is being brought out again today by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and others.
Two arguments have been advanced in the representations by the Cambridge housing associations. The first concerns the future development of the colleges. As my noble friend put it, the colleges would, as a result of some individuals being able to buy the freehold—and I quote from column 1163 of Hansard of the 28th February 1984—
"find themselves with land dotted about with freehold property, and their purpose of building a students' hostel or new laboratories, or of developing the college in some way or another will be entirely frustrated".
The second argument advanced in subsequent discussions with my noble friend Lord Selkirk and with my noble friends Lord Coleraine and Lord Molson was that the terms of enfranchisement under the 1967 Act were not favourable to the freeholder.
1026
On the first of these arguments I referred in Committee to the safeguards for university bodies already in the Act of 1967, but I think it is very important (because this is the kernel of the whole issue) that I should spell them out in more detail. It is clear that exactly the same argument against the Leasehold Reform Act was put forward in 1967 on behalf of university bodies and very substantial provisions were incorporated in response. No doubt noble Lords opposite will agree that these safeguards in their Act are effective and are not lightly to be dismissed.
Section 28 of the Leasehold Reform Act provides that, where a leaseholder applies to purchase the freehold or extend the lease, a university or college may apply to the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a certificate that the property will be required within 10 years—and I shall shall come to the point that the noble and learned Lord made on that a moment ago—for development relevant to the university's educational purposes. The grant of a certificate means that the application for enfranchisement cannot proceed. This applies at any time throughout the currency of the lease.
Alternatively, Section 29 of the Act provides protection of development rights, even if no immediate development is in prospect. University bodies may, with the consent of the Secretary of State for Education, in most cases impose restrictive covenants on enfranchising tenants reserving their rights for possible future development. About 20 to 30 applications to impose such covenants are received each year, almost all from Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and when my noble friend refers to the cavalier treatment of charity, may I tell him—in case he does not know, though I feel he must—that the Secretary of State has never so far refused a consent. That is hardly cavalier treatment and hardly what my noble friend referred to as uncertainty as to the results of applications or the Secretary of State taking arbitrary action.
Having imposed the covenants, university bodies can ask the Secretary of State to act as their agent to reacquire an enfranchised freehold compulsorily, if at any time they want it for development purposes; that is to cover the sort of hostels or laboratories to which my noble friend referred. This is a unique compulsory purchase power available to a private body, and meets, I suggest with great respect, any fears that your Lordships may have about the leasing of land by academic bodies.
I hope your Lordships will agree that these provisions, which already exist and which are being actively pursued by Oxford and Cambridge colleges, entirely dispose of the concern that the prospect of enfranchisement might deter colleges from leasing land to housing associations because it could hinder future development. Indeed, the safeguards are so strong that the individual who buys his freehold with the prospect that it could be reacquired might feel that he has something less than a freehold.
The second argument, as I said, concerns the basis of valuation when a freehold is enfranchised. As your Lordships know—and this is the major point of my noble friend Lord Coleraine—the 1967 Act contains two bases of valuation. The second was incorporated

1027
in 1974 by Section 118 of the Housing Act of that year and applies to the houses of higher rateable value brought into the scope of leasehold reform in 1974. It is generally accepted that this basis produces a higher price, all other things being equal, than the original basis. It was put to us in discussions that if we wished to retain the present scope of Clause 1 of the Bill it would be fairer to freeholders generally, whether charitable or not, to apply the 1974 basis to all cases where enfranchisement came about as a result of the right to buy. We agree that it would be reasonable to provide for this, not least because freeholders would not have been expecting the effect of Clause 1. Hence the new concession which is the effect of Commons Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, proposed in lieu of Amendment No. 1.
I could refer to the views of the British Property Federation, which were referred to during the debate on Clause 1. They are not a charity and they do not represent charities, but we have been having discussions with them about Clause 1 ever since the original Bill was introduced. I saw them after our debates in Committee and I should like to refer to a short passage from a letter which they subsequently sent to me. It reads:
"You were good enough to suggest that it might be more equitable to the freeholder if the provisions of Section 118 of the Housing Act 1974 applied instead of those of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended by the Housing Act 1969, to any enfranchisements resulting from the granting of tenancies under the Housing and Building Control Bill. We have looked at the provisions of the acts very carefully and I write to confirm that we agree that the provisions of the Housing Act 1974 are more equitable, particularly in view of the case of Norfolk v. Trinity College, Cambridge in 1976. We therefore hope that the Government will agree in introducing amended legislation to cover this provision".
I should, in fairness, say that the BPF are still concerned about the situation where the right to buy flats will arise, but that is a somewhat different matter. I hope it will be agreed that the Government have responded to the concern advanced on behalf of freeholders subject to enfranchisement as a result of Clause 1 and that we have done so in a fair and balanced way.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk has explained, his amendment would exclude from the enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967 any lease granted in pursuance of the exercise of the right to buy, where the landlord is a registered housing association and the freeholder is a charitable body. This is a fundamental change from Amendment No. 1 which my noble friend moved in Committee and I gladly accept that. I am pleased that we both agree. We usually both agree on most things, and I am pleased that we both agree that the House should not insist on that amendment.
Clause 1 of the Bill would allow secure tenants to buy a long lease of their homes. In the case of houses, the tenants could proceed to acquire the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I have already explained that the effect of Amendment Nos. 2 to 4 would be to allow the freeholder to benefit from the higher 1974 basis of compensation in such cases, and I am glad my noble friend agrees with me that the House should agree that those amendments should replace Amendment No. 1.
1028
However, I am afraid that our area of agreement today does not extend to the amendment which he has tabled. That amendment would single out a small group of long leaseholders of houses and deny them the right to acquire the freehold of their homes; those are tenants of registered housing associations where the freeholder is a charitable body. My noble friend is prepared to agree that tenants of local authorities with a charitable freeholder should be able to acquire the freehold. I must say that I see no logic in distinguishing between one right-to-buy landlord and another in the way proposed in the amendment. Exactly the same considerations apply from the freeholder's point of view.
I must remind your Lordships that we are not talking here about charitable housing associations; the right to buy does not arise where the landlord is a charitable association. We are talking about ordinary tenants of non-charitable housing associations, who just happen to have been allocated a house where the freeholder is a charitable body. They may have been nominated by a local authority, and, if the local authority had allocated them a house leased from the same charitable body, then they could go on to acquire the freehold. There is no logic in that distinction.
As regards the point of concern about the Cambridge colleges—almost the major point and, certainly, the one which brought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in to raise this matter—I have explained that here there is a unique and extremely strong protection which exists for their development needs, even if no immediate development is in prospect. They may—and they do, in most cases—impose restrictive covenants on enfranchising tenants. I do not want to go on longer on this point.
May I say this to my noble friend Lord Selkirk? He knows the enormous respect and regard which I have for him, but I really feel that this amendment discriminates against a small group of tenants of non-charitable housing associations for no sustainable reason. I should like to give a simple last example. If a charitable institution had leased one of a pair of semi-detached houses to a housing association and the other to a local authority, the tenant of the association would have the right only to a sub-lease, while the council tenant in the adjoining one could acquire the freehold. That is just not logical, it is not equitable and it is not fair.
May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—who said the Conservative vote to exclude charities in the 1967 Act did not seem to have very much effect—that I am slightly amused, if not cynical, at the now great concern which she and her friends expressed for those same chairities which in 1967 they were not prepared to support in that way. My noble friend Lord Coleraine has also—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the noble Earl's amendment, he mentioned amending legislation. When is that contemplated?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I come to that when I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. My

1029
noble friend Lord Coleraine has also agreed that the House should not insist on Amendment No. 1. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that he cannot support the compromise proposed by the Government on Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 offering a higher basis of compensation for the freeholder in the event of an enfranchisement of a right-to-buy lease. In my earlier remarks I quoted from a letter that I had received from the British Property Federation, who, to use their words, have looked at the provisions of the Act very carefully. Then I went on to say that they had agreed, et cetera. It is the responsiblity of the independent leasehold valuation tribunals and the Lands Tribunal to decide individual cases of dispute between landlords and tenants about the application of this basis to their situation, and the Government should not be seen to be steering them in any particular direction.
Second, as your Lordships will know, there is a case about the principles of the Leasehold Reform Act before the European Commission in Strasbourg involving Her Majesty's Government and the Trustees of the Duke of Westminster. The Government have no wish to influence those proceedings indirectly by making separate pronouncements here on matters which may be in dispute. Nevertheless, the view taken by the British Property Federation cannot be ignored.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine has suggested that there is a flaw in the 1974 valuation basis which, if exploited by a tenant in a position to enfranchise, would produce a lower price than would otherwise be the case. I am somewhat surprised that my noble friend (who urged us to consider the 1974 basis both in the House and in the course of discussions subsequently) should now have turned against it. The Government are not aware that this point has been tested in the Lands Tribunal or in court. If it has not, then there is certainly an arguable case on both sides, and it may well be that there is no flaw at all. If there is a flaw, then its effect on value may only be quite modest. However, I can say that if any serious problem emerges, subject to any wider considerations we will be prepared at a suitable legislative opportunity to clarify the point at issue by confirming that the valuation assumptions are not undermined if the tenant first opts for a long lease before exercising his right to enfranchise. I am sorry to go into a complex matter, but I think in view of my noble friend having raised this point in this way that it is very necessary to put the position on the record.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before my noble friend passes from that, the point which I was making did not concern the acquisition of a freeholding by a lessee who had acquired a long lease. I simply pointed out that an extended lease could be acquired; and I do not think there is any dispute between any of us that that long lease would be on very favourable terms indeed to the tenant when compared with the price which he would have to pay to buy a freehold under the direct acquisition of the freehold terms. I was not concerned with the possibility that the tenant might extend his lease and then try to buy the freehold. I agree that there is room for doubt there.
Lord Bellwin: I thank my noble friend for that. As I said, this is a difficult and complicated matter.
1030
Concerning what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, may I say that I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here. When I spoke of amending legislation I was referring to my noble friend Lord Selkirk's amendment, which is perhaps a somewhat different matter. I do not think that there is much more that I can add. I understand exactly why my noble friend Lord Selkirk brings forward his amendment. We have had many conversations throughout the passage of this Bill at its various stages concerning the problem which he raises.
For the reasons that I have given I feel that there is no problem. It is not happening in that way in practice. There has not been a single instance so far where the colleges have been in any way thwarted or held back at all. Therefore. I do not think we ought to assume that this will be so. Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that, and I hope that my noble friend will feel, in the light of what I have said, that he would not wish to press his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord described very well the procedure under Sections 28 or 29 of the 1967 Act, but what he utterly failed to do was to tell the House quite frankly that it has never been carried out at any time. What has happened is that the Secretary of State has granted the covenant; but that covenant has never been fulfilled, and all these tenants-cum-freeholders can, according to the noble Lord, at any time be turned out by compulsory purchase. The noble Lord asked why universities should be privileged. He said it is anomalous. They already stand in the 1967 Act, Sections 28 and 29. They are treated quite differently. Therefore, the argument which the noble Lord makes is vacuous and has no weight whatever.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I did not ask why the universities were privileged: I simply stated the fact that in the Act they have what is a unique right to them. I am not questioning whether that right should or should not have been given in 1967.I am saying that it exists, that it has been practised and that it has worked entirely to their advantage. I am not suggesting that that is wrong in any way at all.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I did not suggest that my noble friend was wrong in that way. Where he was wrong was in saying that this procedure had ever been carried out. It has never been carried out, and no one has any evidence of what course the Secretary of State would take. That is the essential part, and it was not mentioned by my noble friend.
I really think there is no alternative but to ask your Lordships to divide. My noble friend has not met the points we have made. They are serious. They are not large; but they are extremely important for them to carry out.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): The question is that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof, and the amendment to the Commons Amendment No. 4 set out on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed

1031
to; that is, Amendment No. 4B. I am sorry, my Lords; it is Amendment No. 4A.
Lord Molson: Could the noble Lord make it quite plain? I am sorry, but I have not quite understood exactly what the issue is that is being put to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the issue that is being put to the House is the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—Amendment No. 4A.
Lord Molson: My Lords, is it my noble friend's amendment which is being put? If so, and if we wish to support it, do we say, "Content"?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the issue which is being put to the House is the amendment being moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, Amendment No. 4A.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Alport, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Attlee, E.

Henniker, L.

Aylestone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Birk, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boothby, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jacques, L,

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kaldor, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kearton, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kintore, E.

Croft, L.

Leatherland, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Listowel, E.

David, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Denington, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Diamond, L.

Mais, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milverton, L.

Ennals, L.

Minto, E.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molloy, L.

Feversham, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monson, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

1032

Porritt, L.

Stamp, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stedman, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Rhodes, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Strauss, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Scanlon, L.

Templeman, L.

Seebohm, L.

Terrington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Vickers, B.

Shackleton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Somers, L.

Winstanley, L.

Spens, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stallard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Loch, L.

Bauer. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Luke. L.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Berkeley, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cairns, E.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Carnegy of Lour. B.

Avon. L.

Chelmer, L.

Middleton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mills, V.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Platt of Writtle. B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rodney. L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Erne, E.

St. Davids, V.

Forester, L.

Sandys. L.

Fortescue, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gormanston, V.

Gowrie, E.

Strathspey, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint

Teynham, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Henley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Westbury, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kitchener, E.

wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 4A has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4B.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(" (a) the dwelling-house has had those features since it was constructed, or it is a dwelling-house in which one or more of the following alterations have been carried out by the landlord, or the predecessor in title of the landlord, to meet the needs of a disabled person or persons—

(i) the extension of the dwelling-house by the provision of one or more additional rooms;

(ii) the construction of an additional bathroom with a water closet;

(iii) the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water closet;

(iv) the installation of a fixed vertical passenger lift;

(v) an increase in excess of 7·5 square metres in the floor area of the dwelling-house;

and in this paragraph "constructed" includes the provision of a separate dwelling-house by sub-division of an existing structure and the meaning of "predecessor" is restricted to a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns or a registered housing association;")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
6Page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert—
(" For paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"3. The dwelling-house has features which are substan-tially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons.")
7 Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
(" 3A. The landlord or a predecessor of the landlord has carried out, for the purpose of making the dwelling-house suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons, one or more of the following alterations, namely—

(a) the provision of not less than 7·5 square metres of additional floor space;

(b) the provision of an additional bathroom or shower-room;

(c) the installation of a vertical lift. ". ")

The Commons proposed the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement to amendment 5.
8Page 3, line 6, after ("constructed",) insert ("or, where it was provided by means of the conversion of a building, since it was so provided. ")
9Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("dwelling-houses") to ("those") in line 12 and insert ("in order to assist")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
10 Page 3, line 11, leave out ("for the only or main ") and insert ("wholly or partly for the ")
11 Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
(" (2A) For paragraph 4 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
(" 3A. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons who are suffering or have suffered from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983) and a social service or special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons.
4. The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which are particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by such persons, or for occupation by such persons and
1034
physically disabled persons, and special facilities are provided in order to assist those persons which consist of or include either—
(a) the services of a resident warden; or
the services of a non-resident warden, a system for calling him and the use of a common room in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses.").")
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
12 Line 2, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 4 and insert ("3B")
13 Line 9, leave out ("in order to assist") and insert ("wholly or partly for the purpose of assisting")
14 Line 16, leave out ("in order to assist") and insert ("wholly or mainly for the purpose of assisting")
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, while discussing Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 32.

LORDS AMENDMENT
32 Page 3, line 19, leave out from ("the") to ("above") in line 20 and insert ("amendments made by subsections (2) and (2A)")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
Because the decision taken by the Commons on the amendment No. 13 made by the Lords in page 3, line 12, makes it unnecessary.
I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 proposed in lieu thereof.
I shall also be moving that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 proposed in lieu thereof; and that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 to Lords Amendment No. 11. In discussing these amendments it may be convenient, as I have already said, also to speak to Amendment No. 32.
The Bill provides that sheltered housing for the disabled and accommodation which has been purpose built for the disabled shall not be available for purchase. I believe that this is generally agreed. I believe that it is also accepted that disabled tenants should not be prevented from buying as a result of minor adaptations to their homes. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, made that point at Second Reading.
The purpose of the noble Viscount's amendment was to ensure that local authorities can retain for letting purposes those houses which have been substantially adapted at a cost of perhaps several thousands of pounds. The Government's position at the outset was that all adapted dwellings should be brought within the right to buy. I am bound to say that I still believe that this would have been the preferable course. Nevertheless, I have to accept that despite some notable support for the Government's position from my noble friend Lady Masham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, your Lordships' general view was that substantially adapted dwellings should be excluded from the right to buy. The Government have concluded after careful consideration that that change in the Bill's provisions should be accepted. The original list of the adaptations giving rise to exemption which was given by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, is contained in Amendment No. 5.
Essentially, for reasons of clarity and simplicity we felt that some redrafting of this list was necessary and the revised list which was inserted in another place appears as Amendment No. 7. No substantial change in the scope of the exemption is involved. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet the concern expressed on this matter and that the position we have now reached is a reasonable recognition of the views expressed.
I can deal very briefly with the other amendments in this group. They concern the definition of sheltered housing in the Bill. Upon reflection, we feel that it should be made clearer whether or not the social service or special facilities which have to be provided if a scheme is to qualify as a sheltered scheme, must be provided solely or mainly for the particular scheme in question or can be partly for that purpose and partly for another.
In the case of sheltered housing for the elderly, we consider it right that the facilities provided should be wholly or mainly for the benefit of the particular scheme in question. In other words, the fact that housing for the elderly was, say, within easy reach of a general community centre would not be enough to exclude it from the right to buy. In the case of sheltered housing for the physically and mentally handicapped, however, we accept that facilities which serve others in the community—such as a day centre for the disabled—could also support a nearby sheltered housing scheme, and this is the effect of Amendments Nos. 9 to 14. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Molson: My Lords, I have received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, saying that owing to a long-standing engagement in Yorkshire he is not able to be here today. He asked me, however, to express his gratitude to the Government for the way in which they have responded almost 100 per cent. to the amendment he moved at Committee stage. I should like to express my gratitude also.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin has carried out in both the spirit and the letter the undertaking he gave to examine this matter again. I hope he will not feel that I am diminishing slightly the cordiality of my thanks if I remind him that it was necessary to inflict a defeat upon the Government before we were able to secure this very welcome concession. I am, however, obliged to draw attention to that painful episode—the first of several—in my recent political life—in order to do the second thing which Lord Ingleby has asked me to do. That is, to express our grateful thanks to noble Lords on all Benches—including some right reverend Prelates and a number of Cross-Benchers—who supported us in that amendment. This is a case where one can say that your Lordships' House has exercised wisely its powers of revision and the case of very much disadvantaged people, which had not been noticed by the elected House, has been taken into account by your Lordships.
1036
I will only add by way of explanation that we cannot expect any expression of thanks from those who will benefit from the amendment. They cannot be identified at the present time. It is those who will at some time in the future be wanting dwellings specially adapted for the disabled who will benefit from the fact that your Lordships had insisted that houses especially suitable for the disabled should not be merged with the general pool of housing in this country.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as I had my name to that amendment, perhaps I might add a few words to those of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and say how delighted we are on these Benches that this amendment was largely accepted, with some minor alterations, by another place.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the views of the Association of District Councils, which is concerned that sub-paragraph (iii) of the amendment passed by this House has more or less been removed from the amendment as it has emerged from another place. Sub-paragraph (iii) dealt with the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water closet. The effect of that removal seems to be that many dwellings with internal but nevertheless substantial adaptations for the disabled would still risk being lost to local authorities for future use by disabled people. This seems to be a pity. I do not know whether anything can still be done to correct that situation; if so, it would be most helpful.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce what my noble friend the Minister said when he expressed his slight disappointment that the disabled section has come through as it has. I want to reinforce also what I said previously; that I considered this to be discrimination against one section of disabled people, and that housing which is adapted for the disabled is not lost to any disabled people provided it is there. I want to put that view on record. It would be wrong to let this pass, because many disabled people feel the same way as I do on this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 10 to the words so restored to the Bill.
[Amendments printed earlier.]
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 10 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 to the Lords Amendment No. 11.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 primed earlier.]
Moved, That this House doth agree with the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule I to the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and in this paragraph "designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodation issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation.".").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
16 Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert—
("At the end of that Part of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"6.—(1) The dwelling-house is situated in a National Park, or an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty, or an area designated under section 19 of this Act as a rural area, and the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house on the ground that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

(b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).

(2) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section 5(2) of this Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy." (5).").
17 Page 3, line 16, leave out ("and the provision made by subsection (3) above").
18 Page 3, line 19, leave out ("and").
19 Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("; and the amendment made by subsection (4) above shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before that date unless, at that dale, the period specified in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act had not expired or there was outstanding an application for a determination under that paragraph.
(6) Nothing in subsection (3) above shall be taken as reviving any claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date.
(7) Where the amendment made by subsection (4) above applies in relation to a claim to exercise the right to buy made before the commencement date, that amendment shall have effect as if for the words "the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy" there were substituted the words "the commencement of Part I of the 1984 Act.".").
20 Page 5, line 6, after ("person") insert ("or persons").
21 Page 8, line 29, after ("age") insert ("or a physically disabled person ").
22 Page 8, line 39, leave out ("section 8(3A) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (2A) below").
23 Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A relevant disposal is exempted by this subsection if—

(a) it is exempted by section 8(3A)(a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act; or

(b) it is a vesting of the whole of the dwelling-house in a person or persons taking under a will or on an intestacy and the person or one of the persons beneficially entitled to the dwelling-house is the spouse of the deceased or a

1038
member of his family who resided with him throughout the period of twelve months ending with the death. ").
24 Page 9, line 39, leave out ("section 8(3A) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (2A) above").
25 Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
("(8) In any case where the landlord made an application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, it shall be conclusively presumed that this section does not apply.").
26 Page 55, line 1, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
27 Page 55, line 4, leave out ("6") and insert ("7").
28 Page 66, line 18, at end insert ("or persons").
29 Page 75, line 7, at end insert ("or persons").
30 Page 85, line 17, leave out from ("in ") to ("of") in line 19 and insert ("subsection (2A) for the words "section 8(3A)(a), (c), (d) or (e) of this Act" there were substituted the words "paragraph 6(5)(a),(c). (d) or (e)".").
The Commons propose the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement to amendment 15.
31 Page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk rose to move:
31A That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on going over ground which we have already been over many times. As noble Lords will remember, this started in 1980 with an amendment which was won in Committee in order to exempt elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy. We had another amendment which was more restrictive and conformed more to the criticisms that the Government had made of the working of the original amendment which has again been amended in another place. It was on this amendment, which is completely clear, restrictive and sensible that a Committee of this House voted with a majority of 23. The Government proposals in another place have replaced this very simple proposition with exemption for certain rural areas and pre-emption for the rest.
On looking at this a little more closely, it will be seen that the definition of rural areas immediately raises a number of questions. The reference to areas of outstanding natural beauty is pretty clear where it refers to national parks. However, when we come to the designated areas, out of 130 applications only 22 areas have been designated by the department. That raises the whole question of what are the criteria for designation, which has not been covered in any of the deliberations in another place.
I am told by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations and the Association of District Councils that numbers of applications have been turned down for areas which most of us would consider to be rural—parts of Wiltshire, Suffolk, Hampshire and areas in Gloucestershire. There are probably many others but I have not had an opportunity to analyse them all. If the Government are really sincere and determined to answer the points on rural housing, why do they not exempt all housing in rural areas for elderly persons as defined in our amendment that was passed here? That would at least make some sense rather than have the complicated and very difficult proposals that have been put in its place and which will certainly not work anything like as well.
Rural Voice, which speaks for a number of rural and agricultural organisations of all sorts, including farming organisations, has come out against the amendments made in another place; as, indeed, has the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust and Age Concern, among many others.
In making the changes that the Government have made, what will now happen is that we shall have to go back to the situation which existed in 1980 when the Secretary of State made the determinations. In other words, the appeal went to the Secretary of State and, as was explained by the Minister for Housing in another place and by the Minister here, this was an expensive operation costing about £150,000 a year. It was not very satisfactory and. as the Minister for Housing said in another place, the department has the greatest difficulty in satisfying itself that it is maintaining a consistent and impartial stance in its dealings with tenants and landlords. That applies just to the rural side of the argument, but we are aware that most elderly people are living in towns and cities. Nothing that is done by another place in its amendments to our amendment will help any of these people. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who put her name to the amendment that I moved in Committee, referred in her speech not only to the rural areas but also to urban areas.
Relying on pre-emption, which is what all these changes will do and which means that the local authority has to be able to exercise its right to buy back these properties if it wishes to and is financially able to do so, is extremely unsatisfactory—as was pointed out by many noble Lords in Committee. These houses can be lost for ever. The decline in the building of old people's dwellings will add to the long waiting lists, and there is a shortage of rented accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Nicol pointed out on a previous amendment, about 20 to 25 per cent. of people will always need rented accommodation. As she also pointed out, that is a view expressed by a building society and not a local authority. As the span of life lengthens and as, with that, the turnover in elderly people's accommodation is greater than in general housing, it is even more essential that there should be a stock of rented housing for elderly persons— certainly in current circumstances where resources are so scarce and building starts have declined.
This is not a party matter. It is a question of supply and demand and of giving elderly people the opportunity to live in places in which they can be independent and in which they can live a comfortable life without being dependent on other people. The amendment passed on 28th April was clear, succinct, quite brief and referred to houses which are occupied by elderly people,
"designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house for occupation by persons of pensionable age".
The amendment then goes on to describe what "designed or specially adapted" means.
The amendment did not go as far as many noble Lords and many people outside the House would have wished, but it was specifically drafted in this way to meet the Government's objections to an earlier
1040
amendment and in order to make it simpler for the Secretary of State to administer, and for everyone to know where they stood. Perhaps in the whole global view of legislation, and of what is going on, this might be quite a small matter, but it is not when we realise the number of elderly people who are not going to have a chance to live in a place that has been specially adapted or designed for them and who will still constitute, as they do now in many areas, about 15 per cent. of the waiting list.
The amendment we passed was clear and tightly drawn. This is not just a question of turning down the Commons amendments for the sake of it. That has nothing to do with it. There is no way of amending the amendments that the other place has put down without going back to our original amendment, which seems to me to be the simplest and best way to do it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Birk.)
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Baroness in her amendment, I must declare that in general I have been entirely convinced by the Minister's propositions. It seems to me that, generally speaking, the right to buy has been abundantly vindicated and it has had the beneficial results that the Minister has claimed. Where I venture to differ from him. and why I rise to support this amendment, is on the passionate logic to try to carry that good principle into every corner of our social and legal life in the face of common sense, humanity, experience and convenience.
The noble Baroness has put the case so well that I desire to say only this. The Government's case against the view that your Lordships took has two bases to which I shall come in a minute, but first of all perhaps I may say this. Your Lordships have had this matter under consideration twice now. In 1980 an amendment was carried against the Government by a majority, I think, of almost 2:1 after a notable speech by the late Lord Amory. The Government did nothing to disturb your Lordships' decision. Although specific references were made in the election manifesto to the right to buy and the desirability of its extension in certain clearly specified particulars, nothing was said about this, nor was anything done when the Bill was introduced, nor at Committee stage. It was not until the Report stage in another place that the Government tried—and succeeded—to upset the decision that had been come to by your Lordships in 1980.
The second occasion when the matter came before your Lordships was on the first day of Committee on this Bill. Your Lordships then came to a decision in the knowledge of what the Government proposed as what are now claimed as concessions—the provisions which are contained in the Commons amendments. The noble Lord the Minister indicated the concessions that he had in mind—namely, the exclusion of rural areas and dealing with what is conveniently described

1041
as inheritance. Nevertheless your Lordships decided that that was not good enough and that the amendment of the noble Baroness was clear, specific and in every way superior.
When the noble Lord the Minister in Committee indicated the so-called concessions, he indicated further that they would probably be brought forward at Report stage in your Lordships' House. That would have been very convenient, because they could have then been examined at leisure. But there was absolute silence at that stage; absolute silence on the Motion for Third Reading, when we had a great number of amendments; and absolute silence on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. It was not until the matter got back to the Commons that the Government took any steps to deal with it. It got back to the Commons on the last day before the Christmas Recess—a Thursday. I can only say that in that manoeuvre—the failure to deal with it at the Report stage in your Lordships' House and dealing with it in that way in what was clearly said to be a hurried debate in another place—one senses the odour of sulphur that seems to emanate from the office of any Chief Whip.
What are the Government's objections to the noble Baroness's amendment which was carried in your Lordships' House? The first one was that paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 has proved to be extremely difficult to administer. That is neither here nor there, because the noble Baroness did not propose to maintain that criterion. She proposed a very clear one, and there has never at any time been any argument that her criterion is not workable. The second reason was that it would amount to discrimination against the elderly (the people of pensionable age), and that has been the main argument both in your Lordships' House and in another place. But that of course is the purest rhetoric. Are we really going to have the Government moving by that sort of rhetoric? Is it so catching? Is the Minister to be seen flailing alternate arms to make his points apparently more cogent? Is it discrimination against the disabled that we have just seen the Government carry? Is it discrimination if the elderly are disabled? Is it discrimination if the elderly are of unsound mind? What stuff is this that your Lordships are asked to swallow under the name of discrimination?
I turn to the so-called concessions. The first one is the exclusion of rural areas. The figures were given by the noble Baroness and are made the subject of a Question by my noble friend Lord Hylton which is down, I think, for next week or the week after. Only 22, I think, out of over 130 applications have been granted. Why? Scarborough, which the noble Lord the Minister knows well, made an application. Its application was for the exemption of the rural areas outside the town and outside the National Park. Are those not rural areas? Why was that turned down? Why are so many others turned down?
It was suggested alternatively that, if that was not acceptable, the parishes which adjoin the National Park should be exempted, but that was not taken up. There was nothing except a negative reply. If that area is not a rural area, what is? The noble Lord knows the area south of Scarborough and west of Filey. Is that not a rural area? Why was it not certified as such by the Secretary of State? Of course we all know the reason.
1042
It is that the Minister has grown to be (I think probably justly) extremely cautious and critical of many of the local authorities. He fears that they have dragged their feet, that they have been recalcitrant in applying the 1980 Act.
In fact, in another place the words "injustice" and "cheating" were used. Unfortunately I think that feeling has swelled out and overwhelmed a great many quite meritorious local authorities. My Lords, that is the first concession: the rural areas. Perhaps I should just add this: that the Minister in another place invited further applications in view of the new criteria, as he put it. But there are no new criteria relating to rural areas. An area is either a rural area or it is not. That was so under the 1980 Act. It is equally so under the Commons amendment which your Lordships have under consideration.
The second concession is the exemption as a relevant disposal of a vesting on intestacy or under a will. That undoubtedly is valuable; but, as the noble Baroness said, it is a right of pre-emption in the local authority. They have to have the first offer. Whether it is worth anything depends on whether they have the money to accept the offer. If one takes the proposed discount of 60 per cent., it will require the sale of 2½ houses in order to purchase one. Adaptation cannot be very different. Of course, one has to multiply that by the curb on local authority spending. They are not today allowed to spend more than 40 per cent. on capital expenditure of their capital receipts. So that means that one must double the 2½—a bit more than double—and I think that is the origin of the figure of 6-plus which has been used on occasion. So, as I said, valuable and necessary as the concession on inheritance is, it is worth nothing at all unless the local authority can find the money.
Now how can a local authority like Scarborough find the money? It has 25 per cent. of elderly people within its boundaries as against the national average of 16 per cent. So however one looks at the Government's case or the Government's so-called concessions, in my respectful submission to your Lordships there is no new argument at all which would cause your Lordships to depart from the decision to which your Lordships came in knowledge of the sort of so-called concessions that were proposed; no reason to depart from that. Therefore, in my submission, the noble Baronesss's amendment should be carried and I shall certainly support it myself.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I have been involved in carrying three amendments against the Government in the Committee stage. On each occasion they undertook to take the matter back and look at it again.
In the case of the disabled, as I have said before, they have responded fairly and generously and I have thanked them for so doing. In the case of the charities, they did not really move any distance at all in order to enable charities to reacquire the whole of the freehold which had been let. Therefore it was necessary for your Lordships to divide against the Government and once more to defeat them.
In the case of the elderly, I think the position is marginal. I freely recognise the value of the concession that there should be pre-emption in cases where the

1043
heir of the elderly person inherits. I think that is an important concession. We wanted to avoid a state of affairs where some heir would be able to acquire a great capital appreciation, not due to any merit of his own but because he was the heir of some elderly person. The fact that the Government have taken care of that is, I think, a concession of very considerable importance
I want to be realistic about these matters. I quite recognise that, if the Government choose to stand firm, it will not be possible for your Lordships to effect the whole of the amendment, with regard to the elderly living in rural areas, which your Lordships desired. It all turns upon the exercise by the Minister of his discretion in designating areas as being rural. That is done under Section 19 of the Act of 1980. The figures have been given once or twice but I repeat them: that after 130 applications, only 22 areas had been designated as rural areas. My Lords, it is difficult to understand how it can be that, when all these applications have been made by local authorities, who know the conditions where they live, in only 22 cases has the Secretary of State exercised his discretion to designate them as rural areas.
In his speech in another place, the Minister went some distance towards indicating that in the future a more generous, a more reasonable, a more equitable line might be taken in considering whether or not areas should be designated as rural areas. When they are designated, then the provisions giving advantages for the preservation of dwellings especially suitable for the elderly take effect.
The Minister followed up his speech in another place by writing a letter to TheTimes. I thought that went just a little bit further than perhaps he had gone in his speech in the House of Commons. I have had the advantage of a letter from my noble friend the Minister here, indicating that he hoped to be able to say something on the subject this afternoon, although he safeguarded himself by saying—and I wholly accept that as being reasonable—that he cannot anticipate how the discretion of his right honourable friend will be exercised.
But a very great deal depends upon this. Here we are being asked to legislate. The preservation of rights for the elderly is to depend entirely upon the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretion. When we have the figure that only 22 of those applications out of 130 have so far been granted, it does make one feel that we ought to have some reassurance. So far as I am myself concerned, I feel that, if the Government could go a little bit further in the way of indicating the spirit in which they are prepared to act, I should not feel inclined actually to vote against them. But I hope we can have some indication that they are going to take a more broadminded view in the future than they have done in the past.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, before I start on the point I wish to make to your Lordships I should like to comment on the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. Which Secretary of State and what climate of opinion are we being asked to rely upon? We do not
1044
know. It is too hazardous, and I hope the noble Lord will think very carefully about that point.
I want to stress to your Lordships the relevance and importance of this amendment to a grave national problem that we have—and I mean "we". I mean the nation; I mean each one of us as an individual. This amendment is not, and ought not to be, a matter of party business; in my view it is far too serious for that. We have an ageing population. People are living longer, and they have to be housed properly. Not only is that so in human terms, but it is the nation's responsibility to see that its citizens are housed adequately and properly at whatever stage of their life they happen to be. This amendment is absolutely relevant to this problem.
When people are elderly they pass through three stages. We are concerned with the first stage, which is when they are 60 or 65 or perhaps into their 70s and require what we are talking about in this amendment—an adequate house, a bungalow or a ground-floor flat without stairs; a place that is easily looked after; and a place that is adequately heated, which is very important. They need a proper dwelling to meet that stage of their life. This is covered in the amendment.
The second stage is when they get more frail; and, finally, the third stage is when they are very frail and need to go into an extra-care home. But we are not talking about those stages; we are talking about the first stage. Those people in our nation can be divided broadly into two groups. The first comprises those who have assets and some money and are able to look after themselves. They have an asset to sell and they can sell it and move into a dwelling suitable for them. I could almost say that all the big builders seem to be climbing on the band-wagon, but I am delighted to see that they are now building sheltered housing for those of the elderly who have assets to sell and who can now buy. Those people can look after themselves. That is well and good—and thank goodness they can!
But now we have to think of the bulk of our population, particularly the elderly, who have not moved into the affluent society. They are dependent largely on local authorities and housing associations to provide them with the accommodation suitable for them in the first stage as they get more elderly—I will not say the first stage of their old age. On second thoughts, I will call it old age. Some people are still young when they are 80 or even 90. as we in your Lordships' House know from the noble Lord who sits near us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Maturity.
Baroness Denington: Yes, maturity. I thank my noble friend for giving me that word; it is very helpful. These people number thousands, and, as I say, they must look to the local authorities and housing associations to house them adequately. We have not got enough of these dwellings. Although there are many thousands of them, the number is still inadequate for the people who need to be in such accommodation. If they are not in such accommodation they will age more rapidly; they will suffer, and then they will have to go into geriatric wards in hospitals. I am sure that those of your Lordships who

1045
have been in such places will agree with me that they are painful and sad beyond words.
As I said, this matter ought not to be a political issue. The Government are always telling us that they must push to the extreme limit this policy of theirs for the sale of public housing. Why? A policy can be a good policy, but when one pushes it to extreme limits it ceases to be a good policy, and that is so in this case.
In the case of the disabled, we are most grateful for what the Government have done. The whole House is delighted, as is everybody concerned with that group of people. But for many more people it is just as essential to preserve the type of housing that this amendment is talking about. If the houses are sold at some point in their history—for some of them that will not be far along the road—they will not be occupied by this group of the population for whom they were purposely built and financed with public money. Surely this is a group which ought to be left out.
We are asking the Government to be reasonable. People are reasonable. I find that when one puts a case to old people they are exceptionally reasonable. I quite accept that a few will be disappointed if the Government say. "Sorry; we can't sell to you; we have had a look at it". A manifesto is a broad-brush thing but one has to consider all its implications. One does not always do that at party conferences, where one is swept away by enthusiasm. What I am saying to the Government is that people may be disappointed but they will understand. We are asking that the Government should understand the plea and the national need.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, since 1980 a very large section of this House has been actively concerned about this matter. The reason for this concern is that in 1980 there was an acute shortage of bungalows and flats suitable for old people. There still is the same acute shortage. If anything, it is getting worse because of the restrictions and cuts that have been imposed on the housing association programme and on local authority building.
From my personal experience I can bear witness to the shortage in my rural part of Somerset. In the village where I live there are three-bedroomed and four-bedroomed houses occupied by one or two pensioners who are having to live on the ground floor because they are unable to climb the stairs to the bedrooms. They would move out readily if bungalows were available for them. At the moment this is not the case. Other Members of your Lordships' House who have great knowledge of urban areas, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, can bear witness to exactly the same sort of situation in the towns and cities.
There is a further point which has not yet been mentioned. If the right to buy is allowed to be exerted over these bungalows and flats, it is most likely that quite soon they will be occupied by young families with children. We are almost certain, in my view, to have conflicts and tensions arising as a result. The elderly tenants will be disturbed by their younger neighbours and that will be most unpopular. I beg the Government to think again on this matter. If they will not do so, then I urge the House to support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The Lincolnshire Echo of 4th May reported that West Lindsey District Council were
"being forced to sell old people's bungalows when they have a massive waiting list of pensioners"—
and I ask your Lordships to note the word "massive". The article goes on to say that the council have called upon their local Member of Parliament—who happens to be a Conservative—
"to help them try to get the right-to-buy law changed".
The law is of course being changed, but to a totally inadequate extent as so many of us—or perhaps most of us—believe. The report continues that one councillor explained that the council:
"were being forced to sell these types of homes against their wishes".
It goes on to say that another councillor revealed that:
"in many cases old people's bungalows were not being bought by the pensioners themselves",
from which one can deduce that many of them are being bought or financed by younger people, possibly related to the elderly people living in them, with a view to making a quick capital profit.
It is noteworthy that West Lindsey is very far from being a Left-wing area. It is very far from being a part of the world which is in general opposed to the Goverment's policies. Only three councillors out of 37 are members of the Labour Party; the other 34 are divided almost equally beween Conservative, Liberals and Independents. In other words, opposition to the Government's proposals cuts right across party lines.
I hope therefore that those of your Lordships in all quarters of the House who disapprove of the Commons' virtual reversal of your Lordships' amendment will be prepared to go into the Division Lobby with the noble Baroness.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I just want to raise a passing point which has not yet been mentioned, and it is as follows. One matter which has not been thought of by many councils is that when one reaches old age—and I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, that I am not in the least ashamed of that—one needs transport of some kind or other. One must be mobile. Even when one reaches my age one still wants to go shopping and one will probably want to be near a station, particularly if one happens to be a Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think that that is a matter which councils should take into consideration.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to begin with a few observations on what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said, because her remarks went right across the spectrum of the whole housing situation. Exactly 20 years ago I was saying that, as regards all the public housing that was being built, the priority should be one and two bedroomed units of accommo-dation. That is still the position today. But one and two bedroomed units of accommodation are also those which are in the greatest demand by young people as well as elderly people.
The point is: what is a dwelling for the elderly? It is a one or two bedroomed unit of accommodation—a

1047
bungalow or whatever. That is the type of dwelling which it is felt is most suitable for the elderly. But how do we distinguish for the elderly? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that elderly people would be disturbed by having younger people near them. I cannot think of anything with which I could more disagree. When we were trying to decide where to house elderly people or people who were perhaps ill, the one thing that we did not want to do was to isolate them so that—as we used to say in those days—all that they saw were the ambulances turning up from time to time. Elderly people—and this point has so far not been mentioned in the debate—also have rights. They have rights in that they themselves should not be so disadvantaged that they, as a body, should be singled out to be excluded from having the right to buy.
When we discussed this matter in Committee I said that my late mother used to say, "It's not good to grow old". I used to say to her, "Mother, it's no good if you don't grow old". The point is that she was right in the sense that so often there is discrimination against elderly people and what we are proposing to do here today is further to discriminate against elderly people. I do not accept the arguments that sound so right on the face of it but which, when we begin to look at them closely, do not stand up in terms of human values. The elderly must not be discriminated against, as is the case at the present time.
Let us talk about one and two bedroomed units of accommodation", let us talk about the provision of housing for elderly people. It is right that we need more. It should be the priority in public housing. I was saying 20 years ago—and so were many Labour leaders that I knew in housing—that we should not be building any more three and four bedroomed units or even five bedroomed units for large families, but that we should be building only one and two bedroomed units. That is the key to what we are talking about in this debate; if we are talking about human values and being concerned for people. If I sound very impassioned about this matter it is because I feel so deeply about elderly people, and I have many reasons for so doing.
It is a problem but the fact is that you do not—as the noble Baroness. Lady Denington, said—purposely build houses for elderly people unless they are sheltered units of accommodation, and that is something with which I agree very much. I did not interrupt the noble Baroness but—
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I just want profoundly to disagree with the Minister. When I was chairman of the GLC Housing Committee we built many thousands of units specially designed for elderly people, and last time in this Chamber I produced plans to prove that point.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in that case the noble Baroness will have to explain to us what was special about those houses that meant that they could not be used by young people as well. The fact is that what we are really talking about is one and two bedroomed units of accommodation. If the noble Baroness does not agree with me, then we will agree to disagree.
The fact is that we are not talking here about quick capital profits, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said.
1048
That really is not fair. The fact is that the Government have taken this matter back. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon, talked of "a manoeuvre" because we did not bring something back at Report. If I may say so that, too, was most unfair from someone who is always so very fair. The fact is that at Committee we proposed that, if the amendment was not pressed, we would come back at a later stage—it would have been Report—with certain proposals. In the event the noble Baroness—as is her right—decided to have a vote and the decision went a certain way. In those circumstances, if we had brought the matter back at Report we would have been accused then of overturning at that stage a decision of your Lordships' House. It is not fair to say that it was a manoeuvre. We went through the correct procedure; namely, that if a matter is defeated in this House, the Commons have the right to consider what to do with it. They have decided in this case to come back with compromise suggestions—and they are compromise proposals that are being put forward—and that surely is not in any way a manoeuvre, but the correct procedure.
This Bill is a Bill to extend the right to buy. The Government could not possibly agree to proposals which had the effect of taking that right away—and that is what this amendment seeks to do. The amendment is not restoring the position as it was prior to the Bill being introduced. Let us be clear about this. The amendment is now about taking away from tenants a right which they currently possess. It is not about giving a new right. The amendment is about actually taking away from people a right that they currently possess, and that is a vastly different matter. I wonder whether your Lordships really appreciate that that is the significance of this particular amendment. That is as important a point as any that I could make in responding to this debate.
The point has been raised as to how valid is the concession. My noble friend Lord Molson said that he would be influenced by the extent to which the Government say that they are willing to give greater effect through the exemption procedures. I believe that it is significantly different in rural areas. I would say to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that if Scarborough made its application for designation of its hinterland under the proposals now intended in the legislation—although, of course, as he knows, I could not guarantee what the decision would be—certainly the factors which would come into the assessment would be rather different from what existed previously. I think we said that some 160 local authority districts in England and Wales are covered to a greater or lesser extent and will, therefore, be able to use the new exemption procedures if they so wish. That is quite a cry from the position that has existed hitherto and I think it is fair for me to say that.
On the inheritance point, it is also fair for me to say that one can argue about the effect and extent of it, but the fact is that it is a genuine attempt to meet the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House. It is genuinely meant to be so. I have said all along that I see nothing wrong in young people wanting to help their parents to own their own homes. If they contributed something towards it. what is wrong with that? All their lives their parents have helped them, so

1049
why should they not help their parents? I can think of little that is more noble than that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked that question not merely rhetorically. Is not the intention of this Bill to give a right to buy a dwelling-house and not to make a financial windfall?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, there is no question of making a financial windfall. Prohibitions exist and there are pre-emption rights that go with them, so I see no case for saying that there will be windfalls. This is an attempt by the Government to meet concerns which have been expressed. We have done what I think your Lordships would fairly expect us to do; we have moved and we have made concessions. We come back in that spirit and we find before us an amendment which takes us still further away and which will take away from people rights that they now have. It is because of that more than almost anything else that 1 think I am entitled to say that your Lordships should not accept this amendment. It does not have the effect that we have been told; it does not mean that if one sells a dwelling to an elderly person, the availability of that dwelling being used and occupied by elderly people is lost for ever. It does not apply to the other people who buy under the right to buy procedure.
I have said all along that if a person buys, he then continues to occupy the home as an owner rather than as a tenant, and that makes a dwelling neither more nor less available to rent than it was before. I concede that there is a marginal difference with regard to elderly people, but with the safeguards on pre-emption and with the other safeguards that we are now bringing forward at the suggestion of many members of your Lordships' House, in all equity—and I think that if we went back we would worsen the position of existing tenants—we should not support this amendment, but reject it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he challenged my assertion about people making a quick capital profit, I should like to put one question to him. Is it not the case that a person who buys a house from the council at 40 per cent. of its market value can, under the pre-emption scheme, then sell it back at 100 per cent. of the market value, which represents a profit of 150 per cent.?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is assuming that the person buys it and immediately re-sells it. First, he has to wait for several years and then the authority still has the right to buy it back, if it so chooses. So do not let us talk about the windfall profits of these people; it just does not apply.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I was chairman of a housing committee for a number of years and when you have been on housing committees, as has the noble Lord, you know all about it. When you have hundreds of young people wanting houses and you are very short of houses, it is very difficult to get the county councils or the town councils to build the kind of houses that are
1050
suitable for old people. Of course, that can be left entirely to the free market, and I am not against people owning their own houses. I have owned my own house and I like to see other people owning theirs.
My noble friend has not spoken about the concessions and I do not really know what they are. The trouble is that you cannot get these dwellings built for old people when there is great pressure on housing committees to build for other classes of people, with the result that there is a terrible shortage of old people's dwellings. Of course, the young try to buy them because they are there and they have much more money than the old, but if you do not protect the old you will not get the result for which we all hope.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can only say that I am in total agreement with my noble friend on this point. I want to see more dwellings of one and two bedrooms built for elderly people. They are being built. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, was fair enough to acknowledge that fact earlier on. That building must continue. But what we propose will not disadvantage those people in any way. It will give the elderly people rights, and I am passionate for them to have those rights and not to be disadvantaged just because they are elderly.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to reply to the debate. We are very grateful to all those noble Lords from all sides of the House who have spoken so strongly in favour of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, had some doubts about it and wanted reassurance on the rural side. I do not think that he got the reassurance that he wanted, but, as someone who takes an interest in the welfare of the elderly and who is himself a very kindly man, I put it to him that he should also look at the plight of the elderly in the urban areas—in the towns and cities—for it is the whole area with which this amendment is concerned.
In reply, the Minister started by asking how we distinguish the building design for the elderly. Clause 7 of the original Bill, which we are using at the moment (the unamended Bill, the Bill that came from the other place) says quite clearly that where a conveyance:
"is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age".
Even in the other place, speaking on the amendments, the Minister for Housing—and I am delighted to see him here today—more or less made the same points, and made it quite clear (either overtly or by implication) that certainly they are dwellings which are manifestly suitable for older people.
The Minister then went on to use the argument, with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, dealt with tremendous brilliance, about the people being discriminated against. The Minister has gone on and on making this point, which is not really true, because all it can do is perhaps upset a certain number of people. We are saying that where there are not enough houses of this sort to go round—and this is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, was making a few moments or so ago—it is the Government's duty to make sure that those who are really in need will have the opportunity to use these houses and to live in them. If the Government's plan is agreed to, it would

1051
be a discrimination against those who need the houses and who will not get them.
With great respect, when the Minister said that you do not lose a house if it is sold to an elderly person, that is not true. If it is sold to an elderly person, it becomes lost because it then goes into that family. We have had a great deal of cross-discussion about age this afternoon. As the turnover in elderly persons' accommodation must be greater than that in other accommodation because of the sheer age of the people when they go into it—and even if they live longer, it does not make all that difference—when it goes back into the council stock more people will have use out of each unit of accommodation than will be the case if the accommodation is sold. It is also interesting that the rural organisations, the agricultural organisations, the local government organisations, are all against these amendments which have been proposed in another place and all support the original amendment passed in this House. Therefore, I beg to press the amendment.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed, and disagree to Amendments Nos. 16 to 30 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to Amendment No. 31 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gregson, L.

Airedale, L.

Grimond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Attlee, E.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beswick, L.

Henniker, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boothby, L.

Hylton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bottomley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Chelwood, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kagan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kaldor, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

McCarthy, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Denington, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Derby, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Diamond, L.

Meston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milverton, L.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Monson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nicol, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L.

[Teller.]

[Teller.]

1052

Prys-Davies, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Rhodes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Templeman, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Stallard, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bauer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cairns, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Croy, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Minto, E.

Cockfield, L.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford. L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Perth, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eccles, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland. D.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney. L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rugby. L.

Gainford, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn. E.

Gormanston, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shannon, E.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Soames, L.

Marylebone, L.

Somers, L

Henley, L.

Spens, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hood, V.

L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathspey, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Kintore, E.

Teynham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vickers, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Luke, L.

Wise. L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Amendment No. 32 printed earlier.]
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 32, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Belhvin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Further advances in the case of certain voluntary disposals. Where-

(a)a lease of a dwelling-house granted otherwise than in pursuance of this Part of this Act contains a provision to the like effect as that required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act; and

(b)a body specified in section 18(3) above has, in the exercise of any of its powers, left outstanding or advanced any amount on the security of the dwelling-house,

that power shall include power to advance further amounts for the purpose of assisting the tenant to make payments in pursuance of that provision.").

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
34 Line 2, at beginning insert ("(1)").
35 Line 12, at end insert—
("(2) This section shall be deemed always to have had effect.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 to the Lords Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 to the Lords Amendment No. 33.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
("Repayment of housing association grant.
36 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) In section 30(3) of the 1974 Act (repayment etc. of housing association grant in certain circumstances), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) there has been paid to the association in respect of any land to which the grant relates an amount payable in pursuance of—

(i) the covenant required by section 104B(2) of the Housing Act 1957 or section 8(1) of the Housing Act 1980 (covenant for repayment of discount) or any other provision to the like effect; or

(ii) the provision required by paragraph 3, 6 or 7 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (terms of shared ownership lease) or any other provision to the like effect;".

(2)If, after a housing association grant has been made under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act—
(a) there is such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph

(a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of that Act; or

(b) there is made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection,

the association shall notify the Secretary of State of the disposal or payment and, if so required by written notice of the Secretary of State, shall furnish him with such particulars of and information relating to the disposal or payment as are specified in the notice.
(3) Where a housing association grant has been so made, the Chief Land Registrar may furnish the Secretary of State with such particulars and information as he may reasonably require for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether there has been such a disposal as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 30 of the 1974 Act: or

(b) whether there has been made such a payment as is mentioned in paragraph (aa) of that subsection.").

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
37 Line 35, at end insert—
("(4) The amendment made by subsection (1) above shall apply whether the payment was made before or after the commencement date.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37 to the Lords Amendment No. 36.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
("Provisions as respects certain tenants of charitable housing associations etc.
38 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) This section applies to any tenant of a publicly funded dwelling-house who, but for subsection (1) or (2)(a) of section 2 of the 1980 Act (exception for cases where landlord is a charitable housing association etc.), would have the right to buy: and a dwelling-house is publicly funded for the purposes of this section if housing association grant has been paid under section 29 of the 1974 Act in respect of a project which included—

(a) the acquisition of the dwelling-house;

(b) the acquisition of a building and the provision of the dwelling-house by means of the conversion of that building; or

(c) the acquisition of land and the construction of the dwelling-house on that land.

(2)The Secretary of State may pay housing association grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act to an association registered under section 13 of that Act in cases where the association first acquires a dwelling-house and then disposes of it at a discount to a tenant to whom this section applies.
(3)Where an association registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act contracts for the acquisition of a dwelling-house and, without taking the conveyance, grant or assignment, disposes of its interest to a tenant to whom this section applies, subsection (2) above and the following provisions, namely—

(a) section 122 of the 1980 Act and sections 104B(2)to(9) and 104C of the 1957 Act as applied by that section (disposals by housing associations);

(b) Part II of Schedule 1A to the 1980 Act (qualification and discount);

(c) section 2 of the 1974 Act (consent of Housing Corporation to disposals); and

(d) Section 9(2) of that Act (Loans by Housing Corporation),

shall have effect as if the association first acquired the dwelling-house and then disposed of it to that tenant.
(4)A housing association which is a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 may have among its objects that of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above without preventing the association being or, as the case may be, remaining registered under section 13 of the 1974 Act.
(5)In this section "dwelling-house" includes a house within the meaning of the 1957 Act.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
39 Line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("14) Section 13 of the 1974 Act shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included the purpose or object of effecting transactions falling within subsection (2) above. ").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39 to the Lords Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)
The Commons had made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
40 Page 88, line 19, at end insert—
(" . In subsection (1) of section 127 of that Act (registration of housing associations) for the words from the beginning to "its objects" there shall be substituted the words "Section 13 of the 1974 Act (the register of housing associations) shall have effect as if the additional purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (3) of that section included" and the words from "without" onwards shall be omitted.").
41 Page 90, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 127(1), the words from "without"onwards.").

Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
42 After Schedule 6, insert the following Schedule—
SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 4 TO 1980 ACT

  SCHEDULE 4A
  GROUNDS FOR WITHHOLDING CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT BY WAY OF EXCHANGE
  Ground 1
  The tenant or the proposed assignee is obliged to give up possession of the dwelling-house of which he is the secure tenant in pursuance of an order of the court, or will be so obliged at a date specified in such an order.
  Ground 2
  Proceedings have been begun for possession of the dwelling-house of which the tenant or the proposed assignee is the secure tenant on one or more of grounds 1 to 5 A as set out in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act or there has been served on the tenant or the proposed assignee a notice under section 33 of this Act which specifies one or more of those grounds and that notice is still in force.
  Ground 3
  The accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is substantially more extensive than is reasonably required by the proposed assignee.
  Ground 4
  The extent of the accommodation afforded by the dwelling-house is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee and his family.
  Ground 5
  The dwelling-house forms part of, or is within the curtilage of. a building to which sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act applies and the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his in consequence of the tenant or predecessor being in the employment of the landlord or of a body specified in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph.
  Ground 6
  The landlord is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960 and the proposed assignee's occupation of the dwelling-house would conflict with the objects of the charity.
  Ground 7
  The dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by a physically disabled person who requires accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be such a person residing in the dwelling-house.
  Ground 8
  The landlord is a housing association or housing trust which lets dwelling-houses only for occupation (alone or with others) by persons whose circumstances (other than merely financial circumstances) make it especially difficult for them to satisfy their need for housing and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be such a person residing in the dwelling-house.
  Ground 9
  The dwelling-house is one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons with special needs and a social service or special facility is provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses in order to assist persons with those special needs and, if the assignment were made, there would no longer be a person with those special needs residing in the dwelling-house.")
  The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
  43 Line 29, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("either").
  44 Line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or is situated in a cemetery and (in either case) ").
  Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 to Lords Amendment No. 42.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Page 84, line 1, at end insert—
(" . Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 3 of the Housing Act 1980 (meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" etc.) shall have effect as if any reference to the right to buy included a reference to the right to be granted a shared ownership lease.
. Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part 1 of this Act.
.—(1) In section 5(2) of that Act (notice claiming to exercise the right to buy) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted the words "two years".
(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.
. At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment.".").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
46 Line 11, leave out ("In section 5(2)") and insert ("After subsection (1) of section 5").
47 Line 12, after ("buy") insert ("there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(IA) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application."
(I A) In subsection (2) of that section").
48 Line 14, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)")
49 Line 15, leave out ("the 1980") and insert ("that")
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps we might take the next amendments one at a time. Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 are consequential.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, the noble Lord is moving Amendments Nos. 45 to 49: is that right?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords; I am moving, first of all, Amendment No. 45 on its own. My Lords, I beg to move that Amendment No. 45 be agreed to.
Moved, That Amendment No. 45 be agreed to.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 are consequential and therefore are not moved.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 disagreed to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49 to Lords Amendment No. 45.
[Printed above.]
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Bellwin.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
50 Page 90, line 58, at end insert—
("1. The repeal of section 2(5) of the Housing Act 1980 has effect subject to section 2(4) of this Act.
2. The repeals of sections 7(5) to (11) and 15 of that Act have effect subject to section 3(6) of this Act.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
51 Line 3, leave out ("2(4)") and insert ("2(5)").
52 Line 5, at end insert—
("3. The repeal of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act has effect subject to section 2(6) of this Act.").
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that Amendment No. 50 be agreed to, but Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will be not moved.
Moved, That Amendment No. 50 be agreed to.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 disagreed to.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
6.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Separate accounts of expenditure by local authorities under Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973]:
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I expressed my intention of suggesting that we leave out Clause 7. It is not that I object to the clause, rather that I should like the Government to give us some information about it. For generations we have had this power in Scotland to spend up to two pence in the rates on various matters that a local authority considers conducive to the good of the town and in respect of which it has not been the custom or the requirement to keep separate accounts. As far a I know there has been little or no complaint about it. If there is any complaint about anything that local authorities do in Scotland the time to voice that complaint and do something about it was last Thursday. Judging by the results of the local elections in Scotland last Thursday, I do not see any justification for the Government to take a more grandmotherly approach to Scottish local authorities. In Edinburgh, Tories lost seat after seat after seat and eventually lost control of the council. Then in Glasgow—that place where they had high hopes—there is less than a handful of Tories left (I think it is four or five) out of a council of 66.
So they had a complete wash-out in Scotland, apart from a little consolation where they regained on redistribution a Tory seat around Troon, which I have never considered to be a hotbed of revolution.
Why should we have this clause in? Somebody discovered that councils have a separate account in England and as I have said before that is the worst possible reason for putting a thing into Scotland. I know that under this power a tremendous amount of good is done by local authorities. If there is something outrageous that they are going to do, but which is not illegal—and I point out that this does not in any way render anything that they have done illegal—but which some people perhaps may consider outrageous, there is usually a debate about it. The local papers are full of it and we can rely upon the local press to publicise those things. I know, for instance, from my own involvement with the National Trust of Scotland that the contribution of the local authorities to the work of the National Trust is invaluable in the monies that they provide. I wish that the local Member of Parliament who raised this and persuaded the Government to pass it had spoken about the contribution which the Stirling District Council made to the National Trust in respect of information and the very fine centre that we have built at Bannockburn.
I deplore the Government's acceding to this point. I am not going to object to it because if there is more information made available to some Nosey Parker then, so be it. But I should like to hear the Government's justification as to why—and they passed the 1973 Act and we have had local government Acts in every single Session of Parliament since 1979—they wait until the Committee stage of this particular Bill and accept a new clause from someone whose experience of Scottish local Government is fairly limited; and why, for the worst possible reasons, we have this clause.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for speaking in this debate on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to put the case for what we are doing in the Bill by the addition of this new clause. The purpose of the clause, which was added to the Bill during its Committee stage in another place, is to require local authorities to include in their accounts a separate account for expenditure under Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. It may be that some noble Lords are not completely aware of the contents of Section 83 of the 1973 Act. I shall just mention that that is the provision which enables authorities to spend up to the product of a tuppenny rate on expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of the area and its inhabitants and for which statutory powers do not otherwise exist.
There was already an equivalent provision in English legislation requiring English local authorities to keep a separate account for their payments under this power. While we do not have detailed information about the uses to which this power is put in Scotland, recent research has shown that the main expenditure under the power is to enable local authorities to give assistance to industry. However, the power is also used for purposes which are politically controversial.
Given the wide scope of the power, it seems important that there should be provision for a separate account to be kept, as is the case in England and Wales. The clause would force authorities to be more systematic in their account of the expenditure under this power, setting it out clearly for the public to see. At present, local authorities do not appear to be spending the full amount that they could under this power. The first financial year for which we asked for information from the authorities about their expenditure was 1982–83; and the returns to the questionnaire dealing with this year suggest that authorities in total spent about £1·5 million under this power. This is about one-half of 1 per cent. of the total amount which local authorities spent in that year.
This clause when it was introduced in Committee was welcomed by both sides and represents a useful extension of open government as well as requiring Scottish local authorities to provide the same amount of information in their accounts as do English authorities on their expenditure under this broad, general power. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, actually has reservations about it. I know that he is particularly interested in matters pertaining to local government and I should have thought that anything which is going to be of assistance to the general public to see exactly how money is spent by local authorities would have been welcomed by him. I hope that I have been able to explain to him the reasons why the Government think that it is right that Scotland should have this power which is already available in England and Wales and I hope, in view of that explanation, that he might be prepared to agree to Clause 7 of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: To say that it was welcomed in another place is an abuse of words. It was not objected to—apart from I think one Member who
1060
voiced considerable objections, mainly to the speech with which it was introduced by the Member for Stirling. I too would have objected strongly had I been there in respect of that because it was of a very selective nature. It was interesting that the Minister of State should say that of recent days or somehow or another it has been used for political purposes. I think that Stirling made a contribution to the march for jobs. Well, in view of the situation in Scotland, I can well understand local authorities making a contribution towards something that they think should be highlighted—the need for more jobs in Scotland.
It might not be pleasant for the Government but the whole point is this. The 1973 Act which is now being amended was passed by a Tory Government. They did not think that it was necessary then that it should be done. I want to know why it is necessary now. One of the first local government Bills promoted by the Government after 1979 was to free the local authorities from certain restrictions vis-à-vis central government. I should like to know why at this point of time they should think that this is necessary. No one will ever use it. I am perfectly sure of that. The Minister of State himself says that the local authorities in Scotland do not use to the full the tuppenny rate. Is he going to encourage them to use it or to discourage them? I ask this bearing in mind his general attitude to rates I do not object to it but I do not think that it has really been justified that we should make this slight change. I do not object to it myself but I do not welcome it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inspection of local authorities' accounts]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 43, after ("interested") insert ("and authorised by the Secretary of State")
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 8 which is again an open government clause. The rubric reads:
"Inspection of local authorities' accounts.".
The wording of the subsection to be substituted begins:
"At each audit under this Part of the Act …".
That is, at a particular time, there is going to be an availability for inspection—and inspection by "any persons interested". These
"persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating thereto and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents."
The later part of Clause 1 will deal with another amendment. What I am interested in are the words, "any persons interested". It does not read "any ratepayers", but "any persons" so that someone could come in from outside, somebody who is probably just interested. How you define "interested" I do not know; for anyone can say that in their own opinion they are interested on any particular point. They could be pursuing a vendetta against some councillor, for that matter, and serving some personal end in respect of it.
I think there ought to be some sort of limitation on this, bearing in mind that this is the time of year when local authorities are busy and when they want to get on

1061
with other business such as looking forward to meetings with the Secretary of State or the Minister of State about guidelines and everything else. But they have got to hold things up for about 15 days. There could be a regular stream of people coming in doing this. I suggest that there ought to be a certain limitation, and that we might say,
"any persons … authorised by the Secretary of State".
I know that this power is available in England. When we ask what limitation is to be put upon it we are told that it is left to the courts to decide whether or not anyone is abusing the right, as they well could abuse the right in respect of both their presence and how often within the 15 days they are there, and so on.
Once again, this is something which has been brought in because "they have got it in England". I do not necessarily object to it, but I am interested in the definition of "any persons interested". It could be somebody from the States. I do not know whether other former Ministers get the same sort of thing as I get—two letters a week from people studying something that happened in Scotland, who ask whether they can come and see me. They are obviously writing books. They could go and see all the accounts of all the local authorities in Scotland. It would be interesting, even if they do not make a deep study of the matter. But what is involved? Why use these words, "any persons interested"? Why not say "any ratepayers interested"? That is my concern. I do not suggest that the words I use are the right ones, but if the Government would have a look at it and see whether they could find some more limited phrase to give this right to people in the area, I would be very happy about it. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I do not object to this very strongly, either. Certainly I think a ratepayer may well have the right to inspect the accounts. In fact, I thought he had, but if he has not then I agree that this is reasonable. There is a very small point here. Over the last two or three years there have been constant additions made to what local authorities are bound to do, and at the same time the Government constantly complain that they take on more staff and spend more money. As I say, this is a very small matter but it is cumulative; and it will add to the work of local authorities.
If the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, come true people may come pouring across the Atlantic to look into the accounts of local authorities. I dare say this is one of the noble Lord's usual colourful explanations to draw the Committee's attention to the dangers which might arise, but it is true that over the last few years there has been a cumulative "drip, drip, drip" of new responsibilities and new duties put upon local authorities; and then at the end of the day the central government say that they are spending too much. I must point out that it is central government which exceed their expenditure targets, not local government.
So while I do not object to it, I think it should be put on record that this is a small and probably justifiable extra duty which is being given to local authorities. I do not object to it, but I think we should bear the possible danger in mind.
The Earl of Kintore: I certainly thought that a ratepayer had the right to see the accounts. I had these accounts with my rate demand this year.
Lord Gray of Contin: Clause 8 represents what we consider to be a welcome extension of the existing public right to inspect local authorities' accounts. At present the Scottish public may only see the abstract of their local authority's accounts. In England their counterparts may see all the supporting papers relating to those accounts. Clause 8 extends to Scotland the rights enjoyed in England for many years. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to require anybody who wishes to inspect their local authority's books to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend will be flattered that the noble Lord wishes to confer such power on the Secretary of State, but I am afraid I must disagree with him on this occasion and resist his amendment.
The proposal has a number of flaws. First, it is clearly designed to deter people from exercising their rights under the clause. Secondly, it is clearly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise judgment on this matter. For example, what criteria should he apply? How would he justify exclusion? Thirdly, it actually constitutes a restriction of public rights as compared with the existing arrangements. At present the public can inspect at least the abstract of accounts without any approval from St. Andrew's House or anywhere else. Under the noble Lord's proposal, they would require my right honourable friend's authorisation even to do that.
I consider that this is an advantage to the people of Scotland. They will be able to see the supporting papers to the accounts if they so desire. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked how we could define the sort of person who would be entitled in this way. It virtually means what it says: any interested person can have access to these accounts and to the papers supporting them. This includes ratepayers and electors, but it does not restrict access to those categories. The suggestion that young people who might be doing a thesis on the subject would have the power to inspect these papers is perfectly correct. There is nothing which prevents them from doing that at the present moment in England, and it is not intended that they should be excluded so far as Scotland is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that it might put additional work on the local authorities and that it was really increasing their functions. That is not the case. What it is doing is merely giving members of the public the right to see the supporting papers rather than just the abstract of the accounts. I do not anticipate that this is a privilege for which there are going to be regular queues outside every town hall in Scotland in order to study the papers supporting the abstract of the accounts, but I do suggest that it is a right which is available in other parts of the United Kingdom and I have no doubt there are those in Scotland who will welcome it and make use of it. With that explanation, I hope that perhaps the noble Lord will accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not regard this as a privilege, by the way: I regard it as a right, and I think that the Minister of State would probably wish to withdraw what he said about this being a privilege. It is a right. I do not object to it, but I would ask: how have we managed to live without it for all these years? I have seen no great bands of people protesting to local authorities in respect of this. When the Minister says, "Don't worry; there are not going to be many people using it, but it is there", I am still not satisfied with the phrase "any persons interested".
The noble Lord who rose from the Back-Benches is probably right. It is the local ratepayers who are really interested. Your Lordships will remember the definition of "interest" in repect of the land. Having an interest in the land really meant that, whether as land superior, feuer, owner or occupier. This is far too broad to my mind—and why should we give an interest to somebody who probably knows nothing about it? I am thinking for example of the 15 open days for inspection.
Secondly, am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State has to produce an order in relation to the procedures such as the times at which this will be available and the limitations upon the right in respect of which vouchers and everything else can be produced? An answer to that would be helpful, if we were to have another look at it later on.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that there is a regulation-making power so far as this is concerned. Subsection (2) states:
"regulations as to the period in which accounts may be inspected and as to informing persons about their rights of inspection and objection".
So there is a regulation-making power.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is this an affirmative resolution or a negative resolution?
Lord Gray of Contin: If the noble Lord will bear with me, I am almost sure that it will be a negative resolution. But perhaps I may write to him and confirm that point.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are not yet finished with this clause and the noble Lord may be able to get the information. So far as I recollect, it is the negative procedure. But in view of the discussions that we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
Lord carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No.34:
Page 6, line 45, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 46.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is also to get information from the Government and, from what my noble friend Lord Ross has said, the government are aware we are not trying to prevent local people or anyone else from finding out what has been done by an authority. We feel that there should be some restriction on who has the right to do this. The position becomes clear when
1064
one considers what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said about the gradual increase in the duties of local authorities. There is an increase of half an employee here and a quarter of an employee there, with a gradual building up, and the Government always assume that the extra duties can be absorbed.
This amendment takes away the right of people to,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents."
At present, people are able to go into local authority offices and take copies of Ordnance Survey maps or plans for the area, and in certain local authority engineering departments there is a little section set aside for people to take copies. But the Ordnance Survey, through the local authority, levy a charge for this, and there is no question in the clause as it stands that there will be any charge made for making these copies.
In one of the major cities in Scotland it would need only half a dozen people to bring things almost to a standstill. For example, where do they make copies? Do they make them there and then, or do they take the plans away to the local library and put 5 p or 1 Op in the machine every time they want a copy? Alternatively, will there be machines provided? This is a small but important point. Once people have been given the right to inspect, they should also be given the right to take notes or to make some sort of permanent record of what they have seen in order to aid their memory.
But the papers will be incredibly voluminous if they,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts",
and it may take days for half a dozen people in one of the large regions of Scotland to make copies. That may sound a frivolous argument; but someone could cause great disturbance to the running of a local authority. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said and perhaps admit that a little tightening up for the sake of local authorities, and even of ratepayers, may be necessary before this clause is accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the points which he has raised. But first, lest I forget—not that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, could ever allow me to forget!—I can confirm that his recollection that the regulation-making powers are by negative resolution, and my own recollection which was the same, were correct and that they are by negative resolution.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would remove a right which currently exists. As it stands, the clause provides that members of the public may make copies of all or any part of the documents that they inspect under the rights to be conferred by the clause. A similar right to take copies already exists in England, and the Scottish public already has the right to take copies from the abstract of accounts. The only local authority accounts document that they may at present inspect is the abstract of accounts. The noble Lord's amendment would therefore remove all these rights, both old and new.
It may be that the noble Lord is concerned that local authorities will face huge photocopying bills as a result of the provisions of the clause. If so, I can put his mind

1065
at rest. The clause confers upon the public only the right to make the copies and does not place upon local authorities a duty to supply these free of charge. In publishing parlance, it is simply a waiving of copyright rather than a licence to demand free books. Local authorities will be free to make reasonable charges for any copies that the public may make on their photocopiers.
It will be left to local authorities to make arrange-ments appropriate to the area. For example, the arrangements made by an urban authority may be quite different from those which would be appropriate in a rural area. As noble Lords opposite were preaching to me a week ago today, the people at local level frequently know best how to take care of these matters, and we think that they are the most appropri-ate people to make the local arrangements. With those explanations, perhaps the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question. The words,
"make copies of all or any part of the accounts"
strike me as possibly being an awful nuisance to the staff. If people are to be able to walk around making copies of anything—which I interpret these words to mean—is that not going too far; or will it be left to authorities to decide what should reasonably be made available for people to see? I am looking at this from the point of view of nuisance to the staff. Every now and again there are real busybodies who put their fingers into all sorts of irrelevant places and I wonder whether it is necessary to leave the clause as open as that.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for raising that point, but I would remind him that this is a facility which has been available in the past in England and I am not aware of any great difficulty which has been found as far as the English authorities are concerned. While accepting that, regrettably, life being life, there are busybodies around and we are all faced with them from time to time, I think they are very much in the minority.
The Earl of Selkirk: I hope so.
Lord Gray of Contin: Certainly, this has not been the experience elsewhere. I think it is an added facility which the Scottish public can now have, so that they will be allowed to take copies if they so desire. I think this is an improvement, and that it will be operated by local authorities and used by the public with a reasonable attitude. Obviously, a member of the public would not be allowed to be unreasonable and oppressive in demands, but again this depends on the circumstances in each case. However, the 15-day period for inspection which is to be proposed for the regulations governing access will put a limit on the number of documents it would be possible to produce and inspect.
I hope that my noble friend would agree with me that this is something which we should not keep from
1066
the public. Local authorities should have nothing to hide, and if members of the public seek to take copies I really cannot see that there should be any great objection to it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble friend uses the word "unreasonable", but that does not appear in the Bill. I do not know how the local authorities can prevent people being unreasonable. I just wonder if they need some degree of authority to do that. If a person is thoroughly unreasonable, he can sit about in the office all day watching the people working while making copies. I wonder whether some word is not required of a slightly restrictive character.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that there is already a right in the 1973 Act to take copies of abstracts. If some totally unreasonable person were to try to insist that he was provided with a wholly unreasonable number of copies every day of the week for a fortnight, then I think the local authority would be not unreasonable in refusing to make this facility available. As with many minor things, this has to be interpreted with a degree of reasonableness by all concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether the Minister has ever looked at some of the judgments given by Her Majesty's judges in Scotland in respect of the interpretation of statutes. They are governed by the words that are there. There is nothing about "unreasonable" or "reasonable" or limitation of any kind.
It is a different matter in respect of abstracts of the council. It is all backing-up papers, vouchers, receipts and everything else. I wonder if this facility is available in the Scottish Office in respect of the national government. I could think of spending a fortnight there enlightening myself on all sorts of things in respect of receipts, accounts, vouchers and everything else applicable, it may well be, to Ministers. I do not think we know enough about Ministers and their expenses. The Scottish Office Ministers are a different matter from English Ministers. They can determine whether they are based in Edinburgh or whether they are based in London. It is amazing what goes on. The same thing applies in respect of civil servants travelling between London and Edinburgh. You could have a fascinating time if you were interested in things like that, and I feel that that is why there really ought to be something put in.
In another place when this was discussed it was pointed out that this was not a matter of reasonableness or anything else; this was a matter for the courts as to whether anyone was being a nuisance in respect of what they were asking. That is not quite good enough. According to the Minister, we are going to have a chance to see it because he is going to produce regulations. I hope they will cover the extent and detail which may be allowed under this. Within those regulations it may well be that there will be power to get closer to the fact of debarring people from making use of this. I am not very happy about them making a copy. The Minister says it may well be different for rural areas and for urban areas. One can imagine somebody sitting down with a pen copying

1067
out a long account which will take sometime. Yet there is nothing to stop them, as far as I can see. On the other hand, there is nothing here that says charges can be made for making copies available.
The Lord Advocate will know that, under more recent legislation in respect to civic government and all things about licences and people getting copies of them, there was a charge made (and if I remember rightly, the charge was left to local government) such as would cover their administrative costs. There is nothing here about that at all. I should have thought that, since there has been recent experience of this same kind of thing in respect of people getting copies, this might well have been covered.
The fact of the matter is that these are clauses which were accepted in Committee by Back-Benchers. I do not think the Government paid enough attention to them. They will have a little more time between now and the next stage of the Bill, and then time before the next stage again, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carmichael will be pressing the Government on this and on other points, so that they look into the practicalities and the effect on the actual work of local government, which has to continue while they meet this latest drip of demands upon them, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, rightly said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies, I detect that we are a little short in the Chamber of recent or current local government experience. I think this is a point which the Minister really should look at. There are certain people who are barrack-room lawyers who pursue their local councillors with points that they want to investigate. I thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that there was already good access. I have always provided all the papers that constituents of mine (I am no longer a councillor) have wanted, and they have doubtless copied them, but 1 do think that they should copy them at their own expense and I do think it should be indicated in some way that they should not use the copying machine in the department where they are looking up matters. There is usually only one copying machine there, and they could hold things up.
This does need to be rather more precise. It is not a very practical way of putting it. Having said that, perhaps the Minister can look at just how this should be phrased. The access is essential, and there is no reason why they should not have copies, but that might mean that the copying machine would be blocked for half an hour, greatly to the detriment of ratepayers' business.
The Earl of Perth: Together with others who have spoken. I think there is a worry here when we read that one has the right to make copies. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said they should not be unreason-able, but who is to judge that? It would be much better to have another look at this and see whether somehow—even if it is only by saying "within reason" or something like that—we can qualify what is here at present; otherwise, I can see the busybodies being very troublesome.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can appreciate the concern which has been expressed by noble Lords and by the

1068
noble Baroness. The situation is that no limit is placed upon what can be copied. It is up to the local authority. Expenses will again be a matter for the local authority. The local authority will be bound to allow a member of the public to take a copy, but there is no question of the local authority having to provide that copy. It will be up to the member of the public to take the copy and to pay the local authority for it, if they use a copying machine.
When this matter was discussed in another place, the Minister pointed out that it would not be practical to specify a limit on the number of documents which might be requested, although it is worth noting that the proposed 15-day inspection period imposes an upper limit on the volume of paper that it would be possible to produce and inspect during that time. Ultimately, again it would be a matter for the courts to determine in the event of a dispute. Once again, the question has already been tested in the English courts. Public access provisions have been in operation for some time in England. The courts in England have held that it would be possible for a request to be so oppressive as to amount to an abuse of rights; but again that must be a matter for the circumstances and merits of each application.
The noble Lord has suggested that we should leave out from the word "thereto" to the end of line 46. I could not accept the amendment in its present form. However, I know that this matter is causing concern on all sides. It is not a party matter. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall look at the matter again before the next stage to see whether there is a form of words which will achieve the desired objective. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: If the noble Lord the Minister is to look at the matter again, would he undertake to have regard to the circumstance that the matter has already, apparently, been the subject of litigation in England? Surely we should be legislating in such a way as, as far as possible, to keep the citizen out of the hands of the lawyers and to keep him out of the courts, which have a great many other things to do.
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept the point which the noble and learned Lord makes. However, in the event of a serious dispute a decision will ultimately have to be taken somewhere. The court would seem to be the appropriate place for that decision to be taken. However, when I look at the matter again I shall certainly bear in mind the noble and learned Lord's suggestion.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look again at the matter. He mentioned that great concern has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. It should be emphasised that nobody wishes to stifle the right of people to know what is happening. The noble Lord should also consider whether there will be confidentiality. Will it be possible, for instance, to inspect bills of quantities which local authorities accept from builders for, say, civil defence shelters? There may be long queues of people waiting to take copies of bills of quantities of that kind. That might be a new phenomenon, but it

1069
could happen. There is a great deal to be looked at, particularly since the advent of the modern copying machine. May I ask the Minister whether there is any question of reasonable hours being involved? Must this be done at particular times? The noble Baroness referred to rural areas where there may be only one copying machine. If members of the public were to use it throughout the whole of the period that it was available, it would not be possible for local authority officials to use it for, perhaps, very important business. This matter needs to be looked at. We do not wish to limit the rights of people, but care must be taken to protect the rights of local authorities. They, too, have rights.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Most of the points he has made will be resolved at local level by local authorities. I shall look again at the question, but I must make it clear to the noble Lord that I am taking the matter back without commitment. I may find that I am unable to find a form of words which is preferable to that which already exists. However, I give the Committee the assurance that I shall take the matter back and look at it in order to see whether the wording can be improved.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I hope that the Minister will be able to improve the wording. We shall have another opportunity to look at the matter. Having received those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This has proved to be an important clause which is worthy of a few words. Remembering what happened last Thursday, it is right that we should give expression to those few words. We have been promised that the words "any persons interested" will be looked at again. The Minister has also said he will look again at the words: "and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents".
Time and time again the Minister has said that this is a new right. On one occasion he called it a privilege. He said that it will be there for only 15 days, so things will not be too bad; if there is chaos for 15 days, we can live with it.
One of the duties of local authorities is their duty in respect of civil defence. Many people are interested in civil defence, from the point of view of being not helpful but unhelpful about civil defence. They will want to know as much as possible about it, the expenditure involved and what would happen if there were to be a nuclear attack on this country. May I ask the Minister whether the words "and those other documents" include documents which relate to matters of considerable importance from a defence point of view? Will any limit be imposed because of confidentiality? Many of the documents will include the names of certain people. They may be councillors or members of staff. Other matters may be included

1070
which affect ratepayers. The rights of tenants also have to be considered. One of the rights of tenants, if they do not receive satisfaction over speed of repair, is to carry out the repairs themselves and to be reimbursed by the council. This means that they will need to supply receipts and accounts. I am sure that a great number of people, believing that something was not done by the person whose name appeared at the head of a sheet of paper but that it was done in some other way, would insist on seeing the accounts in respect of any particular job. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not in Perth today. He might be able to tell us whether it will include the invitation to see particular receipts for (in respect of a do-it-youself job, say) the cost of the wood, the glass, and anything else. All that may well come into this provision.
It may be quite wrong of the Minister of State to suggest that only a few people will be interested. With this new right, and with what may happen as a result of it in respect of repairs—with people doing this work themselves and then asking for certain sums of money (and there are to be certain limitations in respect of that aspect)—there could be quite a queue of people visiting within the 15-day limit. It might be that local authorities will have to open additional offices.
As to the Minister's suggestion that this is not going to cost local authorities anything very much, I believe he is probably quite wrong. I believe that I am right in thinking that COSLA, while not objecting to the clause, are, like me, not overweeningly welcoming it. One of the points they made was that this could cost them money in respect of staff work. I shall be very glad to have the Government's view on this.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am glad that the noble Lord is not objecting to this clause because I believe he would agree with me that it is extending to the public a right which they did not previously have in Scotland and which they do have in England. While I would agree with him that the fact this right exists in England is not necessarily a reason for legislating just so that we have everything the same in Scotland as we have in England, as this right is available in England, I believe it is proper that we should be making it available in Scotland.
Obviously a balance has to be struck between the public interest in full disclosure of information and the need to protect the individual's rights. That balance will depend very much on the circumstances of each individual case. Ultimately, in the event of a dispute, it would be for the courts to decide. Although the legal systems in England and Scotland are not the same, it is worth noting that this issue has arisen in England, where there is long experience of the operation of wide public access. The decisions of the courts in England suggest that the balance between the public interest in disclosure and protecting confidentiality is different for public access as compared with auditors' rights. There is greater assumption in favour of confidentiality where public access is concerned, but obviously it depends on the merits of each individual case.
The second question which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked concerned information regarding, for example, civil defence, or any other information that

1071
might be of a highly confidential nature. That again would depend on the individual case, but obviously classified information could not be made available. Indeed, I doubt very much whether anyone would expect that classified information would be made available to them. Certainly classified information would not be made available to members of the public. Otherwise, it very largely depends on each case being judged on its merit. In the event of a dispute, then the court would have to be the judge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Will the noble Lord give me the information I sought on whether he expected any increase of scrutiny of these accounts arising from the new right given in respect of the tenants' right of repairs—the right to do repairs themselves and send the bills to the local authority? Would those bills be subject to the same scrutiny?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, the noble Lord has a perfectly fair point. Again, this would be a matter for each individual case to be decided. There might be special circumstances in which a member of the public would have a justifiable interest in the costs in which a private tenant was involved in respect of a certain type of repair. But the individual concerned—the member of the public—would have to be able to convince the authorities that he had a reasonable need to have that information. It would then be decided at local level. If it could not be decided at local level and there was a dispute, it would have to be resolved by the court.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is the Minister now telling me that the phrase about which we spoke earlier, "any interested party", is one that will be decided upon by any local council? That is what he is saying. Is even this decision about "any interested party" one that can be ruled out by the decision of a local council, with there being an appeal to the courts in respect of it? This is very different from what he said earlier.
Lord Gray of Contin: With respect, I do not think it is different from what I said earlier. The noble Lord has now reverted to the question of what type of person would have right of access. The answer I gave earlier, and which I repeat now, is that the right of access would be the same as that which presently exists in England. That is, not only that a ratepayer or an elector has a right to examine, and in this case take a copy of, the papers which are there in support of the abstract of accounts, but that any particular individual who wishes to seek more information about the accounts of a particular local authority has a right to go to the local—
Lord Grimond: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? If that is so, does the word "interested" add anything at all? When the noble Lord is looking at the redrafting of this clause, will he consider leaving out the word "interested"? As far as I can see, he has now made it so broad that anyone engaged in research of any kind can go to a local authority and ask to see the accounts. If that is so, the word "interested" seems to be unnecessary.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I will look at that again. I take the point which the noble Lord makes. Presumably his argument would be that if an individual was not interested then he would not seek to look at the accounts anyway, and therefore the word may be superfluous. I will certainly examine this again. If it is possible to improve the wording then we shall look into this at the next stage.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I asked the Minister specifically about the new rights under the tenants' rights and the right of a ratepayer, or any other interested party, or any party, to ask to see vouchers, accounts and all the rest. I hope that the Minister will read the words he used, because it is those words to which I took objection. He seemed to imply that the local authority could decide whether they would show these documents to a particular person, and as to whether that person had a right to see them.
It may well be that I misheard the Minister. It may well be that the words he used were injudicious. It may well be that all of this will be covered in the regulations which we shall see but which we shall not have a chance to deal with because under the negative procedure it will be left to another place to deal with them. But by tomorrow the Minister will have had a chance to read what he said, and when we return to this Bill next Thursday I am perfectly sure that he will put us right in respect of anything that he said that should not have been said. But I do not seek to pursue this point at the present time.
Clause 8 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that we shall not be resuming the proceedings on this Bill for an hour, until nine minutes past eight o'clock.
House resumed.

Betting, Gaining and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In so doing I wish briefly to explain why it is that I am forgoing the delights of your Lordships' restaurant at this hour to introduce this modest Bill this evening. In spite of the fact that this is the second time in two or three years that I have introduced a Bill on roughly the same subject, I do not altogether wish to give the impression that I am a compulsive and inveterate gambler on horses or any other appropriate and available medium for a bet. Nor do I wish to encourage others to indulge in this exercise beyond reasonable bounds.
A few years ago, during the 1970s, a Back-Bench committee consisting of members of both Houses and of the three major parties was formed with the objective of trying to help all aspects of racing. In those days the main problems were VAT and stable lad unrest. Inasmuch as these matters are still problems,

1073
we cannot claim unrivalled success; but at least we have provided a forum and made a bridge between Parliament and the racing authorities and those who work in the racing industry; and that includes the large number who work in the bookmaking industry.
Therefore, when I was asked to move the Second Reading of the Bill, before agreeing I asked myself two questions. First, will it help racing in the broadest sense? To this I believe the answer is, "Yes". Secondly, will it be for the public's advantage or will it make them into betting addicts and lead them into the depths of depravity? As I say, this Bill is essentially modest and I believe it is to the public advantage.
As regards the racing industry, it has always been the wish to attract more people back on to the racecourses, which are in dire need of increased patronage. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to improve considerably the amenities which could be offered in betting shops, and I wondered whether this might adversely affect racecourse attendances. After taking expert advice, principally from the Jockey Club, I am satisfied that racecourses would not suffer. Indeed, the extra interest, if stimulated, might eventually encourage people to see the real thing. Of course, racing does receive a small cut (through the levy board) of every legal bet struck.
As regards the public, the Bill is a sequel to the 1963 Act of the same name which brought under the control of law an occupation which had hitherto been conducted illegally. In this minefield caution was very much the key word and strict regulations were enacted. But almost a quarter of a century later off-course bookmaking has shown itself to be, on the whole, mature and responsible, and an important part of our recreation. It is of course also a substantial contributor to the Revenue. I do not wish to moralise or pontificate but I believe that a bet on a horse in reasonable proportions can be looked upon as a healthy interest and no more depraved than investment on the Stock Exchange or membership of a Lloyd's syndicate.
This Bill seeks to remove some of the original strict regulations by providing the Home Secretary with the means to enable bookmakers to offer their clients the type of service they require—which can indeed already be found in illegal shops—while keeping the whole operation within the law. These powers are an important feature of the Bill and I hope will mean that we need not go into too great a detail in the Bill because these details may have to be altered fairly frequently. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will confirm that the Home Secretary's order would not be made without wide consultation and Parliament would then use the affirmative procedure to confirm the order.
Apart from the racing authorities, this Bill is supported by the Bookmakers Off-course Licensees Association and by the smaller bookmakers. It seems strange to me to be making a speech on this subject without the scrutiny of the late Lord Wigg over my right shoulder! But it is fairly rare for anything in this field to have this wide support. So far as the smaller bookmakers are concerned, their welfare was an important point in the debates in the other place. They tend to operate in the larger villages and smaller towns

1074
where the bigger chains do not think it worth their while. I went to see the admirable Mr. Worth last Monday in Kegworth, which is close to my own home, near Loughborough. He was looking forward to the improvements that he will make to his distinctly bleak premises if this Bill becomes law.
I now turn to the clauses of the Bill to say a few words on the major clauses. Clause 1 deals with the provision of these improved amenities such as tea-making machines and coffee-making machines, but as your Lordships will see from subsection (1)(b) this specifically excludes the sale of liquor. The present EXTEL commentary—commonly known as the "blower"—will continue. This purely provides information on prices from the courses and an oral commentary. The Bill will allow the installation of television sets to show the running of races live to the customers. That will dispose of the rather silly present situation where sets can be installed for the staff to watch but a customer can only do so by being invited round the back of the betting office. The size of the TV screens could be a slightly controversial issue; but that is the kind of consideration which could be included in the Home Secretary's order. Habits change fairly frequently in this field. These modest creature comforts will still leave the premises essentially a place to have a bet. They will not in themselves entice the ordinary thirsty British tea or coffee drinker or the square-eyed television addict into the shop only to find himself promptly fleeced by irresistible temptations to bet on the races.
Clause 2 deals with advertising. The present situation is totally confused and interpreted in various ways by betting shop owners, the courts and the police. This is particularly true in the case of window displays. This clause will enable the Home Secretary to rationalise the present confused situation. Displays inside betting shops will also be considered and more information made available in the shape of publications such as Timeform. and so on.
Clauses 3 and 4 are, I think, self explanatory inasmuch as clauses in any Bill ever are; and that is really saying something. I therefore simply conclude by commending this modest Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Crawshaw.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for the way in which he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, and for his light-handed touch in explaining its provisions and his own personal position in regard to supporting such a Bill. One feels that this is a Bill—and I speak personally since this is a Private Member's Bill—which ought to have a Second Reading; but there are some points which the House ought to bear in mind.
May I say first of all that I believe that another place did a service in regard to the Bill as originally presented there, in two directions. First of all, it then had the name, "Specified Premises Improvement Bill", which was not a title which gave everybody a very clear indication as to what the Bill was about. I think

1075
therefore that when the title was altered to the one which comes before us it was a very sensible thing to do. The second thing that was done in another place was to remove what was then Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill was going to permit young people over the age of 16 to be employed in licensed betting shops. The other place in its wisdom at the Committee stage decided that that was not an acceptable clause and it was removed.
I think that the House can certainly obtain a great degree of comfort from what the noble Lord correctly said, which was the assurance that was then given on behalf of the Secretary of State; namely, that there would be very wide and deep consultations before the regulations were made. If I may quote from the Minister. Mr. Douglas Hurd, at column 19 of Standing Committee C's proceedings in another place on 4th April of this year, he said:
"If the Bill is enacted and the powers are conferred on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the next step will be consultation. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to indulge in a headlong rush to make an order under the new Act without consulting widely. I give an assurance that there will be consultations. Parliament would then use the affirmative procedure to approve the order, so it would not be abdicating from future involvement.".
That ends the quotation.
This consultation is very necessary. There was a Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in 1978 (Cmnd. 7200) and which dealt with the very matters (among, of course, many other things) that this Bill deals with. It would be obviously wrong to ignore the recommendations of that Royal Commission when considering whether orders should be made by the Secretary of State, and, if so. the nature of those orders. Very briefly, as I promise your Lordships, I shall refer to some of the relevant considerations which 1 am sure the Secretary of State will bear in mind.
The first one that I would refer to is the lack of statistics and other information of a very necessary kind which the Royal Commission found in regard to matters affecting bookmakers and generally in regard to gambling. One of the recommendations which was made by the Royal Commission (and I am reading from page 20 of Volume One of its final report) was:
"We therefore believe it both essential and urgent for the Government to establish a Gambling Research Unit to monitor and study the incidence, sociology and psychology of gambling.".
Although that was an urgent recommendation which was made in 1978, we are here considering a Bill some six years later without such a research unit having been set up.
The Royal Commission referred specifically to the question of licensed betting offices in connection with the necessity for research. I am looking at recommendation 8 which was made in paragraph 7.22:
"the Government should commission a study of bookmaking finances in about three years' time".
Three years has certainly elapsed and that recommendation has not been carried out, although here we are considering a Bill which affects bookmakers and what ought to happen to their licensed premises.
In regard to the special provisions of this Bill, let me refer to recommendation 9 to be seen in the summary

1076
of recommendations at page 425, this time in Volume Two of the Royal Commission's report:
"Betting offices should not offer any facilities which might induce people to enter them for any purpose other than to bet".
Then it goes on:
"they should, however, be allowed to provide vending machines for light refreshments and non-alcoholic drinks, which are forbidden by law at the present time".
That is a recommendation which is carried out in this Bill, but of course there is the general question of the facilities that might induce people to enter premises for any purpose other than to bet. Obviously one has in mind in this connection the television and other facilities and general entertainment which are provided for under this Bill if the Secretary of State sees fit to make regulations. One hopes, therefore, that all the caveats that were entered by the Royal Commission will be taken into account before the Secretary of State deals with that aspect.
Lastly, there is the question of the signs which can appear outside, as well as inside, licensed betting premises. Again the Royal Commission made recommendations here which one hopes the Secretary of State will bear in mind. I am looking at recommendation 10 which is reported at page 426:
"The provisions concerning signs and notices visible from outside the premises of a betting office should be revised and simplified".
That is referred to in paragraph 7.54 of the report. Recommendation 11 is:
"Provided a code of consumer protection is instituted, the restrictions governing notices and signs visible inside a betting office should be revoked and paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (encouragement to bet) should be repealed so far as it applies to signs and notices".
That means obviously that consideration has to be given again to what the Royal Commission had in mind in that connection.
Subject to those matters, as I said, I think that this Bill, which was so gracefully introduced by the noble Lord, should certainly have a Second Reading.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for his excellent explanation of this Bill. I think he has got hold of a rather slippery customer. It is a purely enabling Bill. It does practically nothing itself. Owing to the strong convention in this House of never rejecting a statutory instrument, this Bill gives the Home Office pretty well a free hand to do what it likes regarding the amenities in betting shops.
I am conscious that I am not coining a phrase when I say that betting is a mug's game. It always has been and it is more so now than ever before, now that we have the betting tax and the betting levy. I think that the best advice you can give to a young person who thinks he is going to be able to make money backing horses is, "Remember, my boy, that only one horse is running for you and all the others are running for the bookie". That sometimes makes him think.
But even betting is not all bad. It does at least give employment not only to the bookmaking industry but to the horse racing industry and in the oganisation of all the other events upon which the betting takes place. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is no business of

1077
governments to encourage mugs to play games, but rather they should control the circumstances in which mugs play their games if they must. No doubt it was right in 1963 to have the Act which introduced the betting shop, because illegal betting was rife; the law was in total disrepute and here was a measure to control which brought under control something in which people were going to indulge in any event. But this Bill would undoubtedly permit the Home Secretary to encourage betting by enormously improving the amentities in betting shops.
This brings me to make a point about the betting tax. There seems to be a two-sided argument here. On the one hand, if people are slowly getting rid of their money, which is what the average punter is doing for 99 per cent. of the time, it is no bad thing that he shall be made to throw a percentage of it into a fund to relieve the hard-pressed taxpayer. But on the other hand I do not relish the thought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to the Home Secretary and saying "Look here, you have got a chance here enormously to popularise the betting shops and increase the betting turnover and increase the revenue from the betting tax". I hope that, if that conversation takes place, the Home Secretary will be very cautious about accepting an invitation along those lines. I am glad that there is to be—we are told—extensive consultaton before any statutory instrument is going to emerge as a result of this Bill and I do hope that the Home Secretary is going to proceed very cautiously indeed along this path.
7.32 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailesbury: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, because this is the first time I have dared to attempt a Second Reading speech. But unfortunately I am not sure that too much gratitude is going to manifest itself in this speech. I am reminded of that sad little wartime story to the effect that when Luftwaffe came over the British troops got into dugouts and put on tin hats. When the RAF planes came over, the Germans got into dugouts and put on tin hats. When the American Air Force appeared, everybody got into dugouts and put on tin hats. I am afraid I reach hastily for my own tin hat when I see politicians overflying this particular area.
I shall be brief, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I recall just one example of the kind of thing which has tended to happen on previous sorry occasions. There was a Chancellor of the Exchequer—not very long ago, although he is now dead—who noted to his great satisfaction that the football pool industry is able to bear a fairly high rate of tax. He therefore acted—he did not just fly a kite, he acted—on his assumption that the fixed odds football industry would similarly be able to bear a fairly high rate of tax. By his action he brought that industry to a complete standstill at a stroke (a phrase very popular in those days).
Obviously, he failed to appreciate that these two sections of the industry cater for totally different sections of the betting public. One section is so mesmerised by the mirage of instant wealth that it is not deterred even by the fact that for every pound that goes into these pools a miserable 30p comes out again,

1078
while the other section is interested, of course, in a calculated risk and a modest profit. One really would have thought—would one not—that the difference would have been well within the comprehension of this intelligent man and his battery of advisers; especially since, if only one of them had grasped the point in advance, presumably the whole fiasco would have been averted. But, no, evidently that was asking too much.
Now this season on the flat, the form is working out pretty well. The question for us this evening is whether the political form is working out equally well. In other words are the politicians doing it all wrong again? Yes and no, but predominantly yes. The sad thing is that if one managed to take a sufficiently narrow and blinkered view, the Bill is so manifestly benign that one would feel inclined to criticise it for not going far enough. In what other country in the world could it have been enacted that one may have a betting shop but one may not make it comfortable nor attractive lest someone should be lured inside to bet? Sometimes I feel surprised that we cannot legislate to make pubs uncomfortable and unattractive lest someone should be lured inside to drink. Really, this mentality is the wonder of our enemies and the despair of our friends.
So what is wrong with the Bill? In isolation, as I have said, nothing. Only this: I think it will seriously unbalance and thus undermine the whole structure of the betting industry upon which racing relies. I am not one of those who depict the owners of the big betting shop chains as the villians of every piece. I say only that this Bill will give them enormous scope for indulging their strong and unhealthy monopolistic urges. This Bill will do their work for them by seriously weakening the on-course betting market.
Far fewer people, I think, will choose to bet on the racecourse rather than in these much improved shops. This will enable the big betting shop chains to denigrate, far more convincingly than they already do, the state of health of the on-course market. They already dislike it, with its cut-throat competition from which the betting public so greatly benefits. Now they will claim that it is so enfeebled as to be irrelevant, and that they are the people to determine what ungenerous rate of odds their customers may in future receive. It will be most ironic if this Bill, so loaded in favour of large monopoly against small private enterprise goes through under this particular Government.
If I may end on a constructive note by revealing what the politicians ought to do but will not, the Government ought to balance this Bill by abolishing the on-course betting tax. If they were to do that—that is, if pigs were to fly—then one could welcome this Bill.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Crawshaw will forgive me, after the very genial way in which he has introduced this little Bill, if I tell him I do not like it at all. I had better declare an interest at once and explain why. I am and have been for the past seven years the chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is a democratically elected body embracing all walks of life in the greyhound world, including that of the bookmaker. So I am not to be heard as speaking against the

1079
bookmakers in the few remarks I wish to address against this Bill this afternoon.
I think it is going to do our sport great harm. It is going to take the punters away from the greyhound racing track and take them into the betting shop. We have no betting levy in the greyhound racing world, unlike in horse racing. We rely on the money that is passed to our totalisators on the track. The Bill will take it into the shops and put it into the bookies' pockets. I am not going to be dog-in-the-manger or greyhound-in-the-manger and say that I want the betting shops to be untidy and uncomfortable and improperly regulated. Of course not. It must be done properly. So what am I worrying about?
Our sport, the greyhound racing sport, is in an anxious state of health. Therefore any further threat—and I regard this Bill as a further threat—is very unwelcome. After soccer, we are the second biggest spectator sport in this country. We are a modest sport. We are a family sport and, importantly in these terrible events we have read about recently, we are a law-abiding sport. We do not pull down the barricades or throw broken bottles at the police.
Any decline in the attendance at our sport I think will be a serious national handicap. There is a decline. About 4½ million people a year attend greyhound racing at the moment, and the number is declining. A large sum of money finds its way into the Treasury and that is declining. Tracks are closing. Our best known track, the White City, is to be closed almost immediately. Your Lordships will have seen, and it gives me great pleasure, that Mr. Isadore Kerman and the GRA are proposing to build another track over by Wormwood Scrubs, and I am very grateful to know about that. But there are threats to other tracks: Harringay. Wimbledon, Leicester and Manchester are all in danger. In switching over to horse racing, I have to remind your Lordships that there is no horse racing track in the centre of London. There are three within bicycling distance of the Eiffel Tower. In London we have none nearer than Kempton or Sandown. Nor is there any horse-race track in Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff or Glasgow, of the bigger cities. Why? Because they were too expensive and it was more attractive to put up offices and factories there. I see further erosion in this Bill.
We are primarily an evening sport. The betting shops are open until about 6.30 in the evening and people can bet in advance on the races that evening and on the races that frequently take place in the afternoon. They are putting money not into the greyhound sport but into the bookmakers' pocket. As I said, we have no levy. I remember this vividly because for four years I was chairman of the Tote and I served on the levy board. I remember the debates that went on at the time; the noble Lord, the Minister, will also remember. As 1 say, the bookmakers make a contribution but it is a minuscule contribution Some of the more generous ones put their hands into their satchels and make a voluntary contribution. The Home Office well know that this is a laughable contribution because recently they introduced it in Northern Ireland, where it did not exist before, and made it very much bigger, thereby acknowledging the point that we have to make here.

1080
The Minister knows all about this. He knows it because I make an annual visit to the Treasury, with my supporters around me, trying to get the betting tax made a little bit less ridiculous. It is ridiculously balanced against our interests. I have not had very much success. We have been trying to get other amendments made to the betting laws. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Newall, introduced a Bill into the House and another is in contemplation to try to put this matter right. I am not speaking against the bookies. I am not saying anything against horse racing. I am not suggesting that the betting shops should be made uncomfortable in any way. What I am trying to bring home is the fact that by luring more and more punters away from our tracks and across to the betting shops the Bill is gravely imperilling a sport which already is seriously in danger.
Of course, I shall not divide the House against this Second Reading. The House does not look very full at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised an interesting constitutional point. We also had a slightly more controversial Division earlier in the day. Lord Wigg never hesitated to divide the House on a Private Member's Bill, because he thought that what happened to some of our Bills in another place merited their Bills occasionally being divided upon here. I shall do no such controversial thing.
1 shall merely ask the noble Lord to be good enough to take us fully into consultation and to remember our plight and our danger and the necessity, for the reasons I have given, to support the greyhound racing track and sport. In anticipation of the favours to come from the noble Lord, I might suggest to him that he should cast his eye favourably on the prospects of "Disco Duchess" in the 10 p.m. at the White City this evening. I cannot do better than that.
7.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, it may be right for me to indicate now the Government's attitude to this Bill—though not to the odds quoted so kindly a moment ago by my noble friend—and explain how we would proceed if this Bill were enacted. First, may I make it clear that we support the Bill. My right honourable friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has done the industry a service in taking the Bill through another place and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crawshaw for his readiness to take it through this House, in one of his rare and brief speeches. Both rarity and brevity are virtues in legislation and I congratulate him on both, although I wish we saw him more often. He introduced a useful measure. My noble friend is a courageous horseman and a good deal better at cross-country than some I can think of who do not suffer his handicap. I hope that on this occasion your Lordships will give him an easy ride.
We think the law governing signs and notices outside licensed betting offices is unsatisfactory and that the time has come to clarify and simplify the existing confused situation. We have been considering what may be exhibited and displayed inside the licensed premises and we have also given thought to relaxing the restrictions in the facilities available in licensed betting offices. It is this last point which has

1081
attracted most attention and it is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill. This would enable the Secretary of State to lay down by order what facilities may be provided in licensed betting offices. Such an order would of course have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it was made.
Your Lordships will wish to know what sort of changes might be proposed. None, I must emphasise, would be brought before Parliament in an order until there had been full consultation with the various interests. Every one of your Lordships who has expressed an interest in the Bill has expressed an interest in that aspect of it, and I am glad to reassure noble Lords. These consultations would extend beyond the racing and betting industries. For example, changes in the controls on the conduct of betting offices will affect the justices who license them, the local authorities who are responsible for planning and other controls, and the police who enforce the law.
Nor would any changes made override the relevant provisions in other legislation. As far as the Secretary of State is concerned, this is an enabling clause in an enabling Bill. But the only legislation it enables him to vary, by order and under parliamentary supervision, is betting legislation. It does not enable him to set aside the requirements in legislation about other things such as the sale and supply of food or drink, and the licence holder and his premises would have to satisfy them as well if he provided facilities affected by them.
It has for long been understood that the various statutory controls and restrictions on gambling are designed to prevent the stimulation of demand for gambling facilities. We have no intention of departing from that principle when drafting orders under this Bill. But why, your Lordships might ask, should there by any change at all in that case? The existing restrictions were imposed when there was no experience of cash betting offices in the United Kingdom. They were designed to discourage continuous betting, loitering and inducement to bet. Since the 1960s experience has shown that some of the fears entertained before cash betting offices were legalised were without foundation; that perhaps the greatest inducement to bet is the simple existence of such facilities; and that the restrictions at present imposed may be unnecessarily restrictive.
The bookmakers' associations have asked for a relaxation in the controls on the conduct of betting offices, in particular for removal of the prohibition on television broadcasts and on vending machines for non-alcoholic drinks. Moreover, it has been suggested that these restrictions in particular provide an incentive to illegal betting in places where such facilities do exist, and that has caused us some concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly referred to the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling; I am obliged to him for notice of his intention so to do. He referred to the fact that it suggested that information on the statistics of gambling should be brought together in one place. I think I should refer the noble Lord, although I am sure he must have seen it, to Command Paper No. 7897 which was published in 1980 for that very purpose.

1082
This was an occasional publication, as my now noble but then right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in the debate on the report. I think the noble Lord will find it useful.
On the finances of bookmakers, the Royal Commission also concluded that bookmakers did not make excessive profits. Provided they operate within the law we do not see reason, from the standpoint of gambling control, for such a study to be made. Issues such as monopolies would be for the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Returning to the Bill and the need for it, we also need a little flexibility to keep legislation up to date with technological change. The power contained in this clause would give us that flexibility and enable us to deal with changing conditions such as further developments in audio-visual technology. Moreover, the clause is not a device that can move in one direction only. The enabling power would mean that restrictions could be tightened as well as relaxed, if that should ever become appropriate.
As I have said, no order would be brought forward without wide consultation. But there are limits to what we would consider, even within consultation. I can assure my noble friend Lord Mancroft in particular that there is no question of turning betting shops into some form of leisure centre with cabaret or entertainment; nor will they become general gambling centres.
It is not our policy to mix different gambling activities. The business of a betting shop will remain the effecting of a betting transaction. Any change in the restrictions on facilities would therefore be made with that very much in view. What we have in mind are, first, facilities genuinely related to the betting transaction (such as the facility to see a televised race) or, secondly, those which might be regarded as a reasonable incidental facility (such as vending machines dispensing tea or coffee). That, I think, is quite in accord with Recommendation 9 of the Royal Commission, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. These are not inducements; they are scarcely even embellishments.
However, I can say to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that we do recognise that there is concern that the introduction of television in licensed betting offices could adversely affect attendances at greyhound races without the compensation of increased levy income which would result from any increase in off-course betting. I entirely understand that. In fact, the British Greyhound Racing Board will be coming to see Home Office officials in the very near future to discuss the problems facing greyhound racing and their proposals for possible changes in the law.
In the context of this Bill, the board would be one of the bodies we would consult about any order proposed under Clause 1. They will, therefore, have the opportunity to comment on any proposals and to suggest measures which would safeguard their interests. I think that that is the assurance that my noble friend was seeking. I cannot, of course, give him any assurance about changes in the level of taxation, which fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, that is a point which I also make to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.

1083
We have had some preliminary consultations already. If this Bill were to be enacted, our further consultation would cover much greater detail. For example, in considering whether television should be allowed it would be necessary to decide whether there should be any restriction on the number of sets, or the size of screens, or on when they could be switched on. Any such detail, if aproved, would be contained in an order made under this clause. So there is no question of any headlong rush to provide additional facilities in betting offices. Proposals for change will be considered carefully, and Parliament, as I have already said, will, quite rightly, have the final word. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury, will recognise that this is a fairly effective safeguard, and one which involves his own supervision as well as that of others; and I hope he will perhaps be persuaded with great caution eventually to remove the metaphorical tin hat which he donned on the approach of my noble friend over the target area.
Clause 2 deals with the signs and notices outside licensed betting offices. The law on these has, as I have said, been recognised as unsatisfactory for some time. This clause, which seems to me to be in accord with Recommendation 10 of the Royal Commission, amends the 1963 Act to bring the publication of all advertisements and notices visible outside licensed betting offices under the control of regulations made by the Secretary of State. The regulations would relate to the content and manner of display of the advertisements. They would apply to notices or advertisements which were inside the betting shop but visible from the outside (for example, in a window), to those which were in premises giving access to such an office, and to those on the outside of the office premises or on the outside of premises in which the betting office is situated. They would not apply to notices or advertisements visible only inside a betting office. These are already subject to control under Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act.
Preliminary consultation has indicated a fair measure of agreement as to what might be permitted by way of signs and notices outside licensed betting offices. We think this might include the company or individual's name, a description of the business (which might be licensed betting office, bookmaker, turf accountant, or something similar) and the telephone number of the premises. Two provisions might be made mandatory: we might require, first, the display at the entrance to the licensed betting office of a notice, clearly visible and legible to anyone seeking to enter, stating that persons under the age of 18 are not admitted or would have to go out again; and, secondly, a notice giving the times of opening.
Whatever might be agreed would still have to comply with planning regulations. One of the matters to be pursued in further consultations, before any regulations were made, would be the extent to which the manner of display should be left to the planning authorities. Window displays have caused some confusion in the past. There has been doubt about whether they constitute an inducement to bet. But it has been suggested that they are aesthetically more acceptable in a shopping area or high street than a simple blank or painted out window. This, again, is

1084
something on which planning authorities will have a view. Our initial view, and one which has the general support of the local authority associations, is that it would seem reasonable to permit the display of pictures, photographs, cartoons or other matter associated with events on which betting takes place, but to prohibit any text.
I do not want to go into too much detail, but I might just add that notices of staff vacancies might be a reasonable exception to this, and there might be others. I say that simply to show that we have given a good deal of thought to this matter already. But we do not propose to permit the display of the odds available on the Grand National or the Derby, or the animal which my noble friend recommended to me earlier and whose name I shall have to ask him for later—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it was "Disco Duchess".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to noble Lords better informed than me, because Hansard would come too late to my rescue!
As with any changes which might be made under Clause 1, there would be widespread consultation before any regulations were made. Clause 3 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to vary certain fees by order. Under the 1963 Act the fees payable for the grant or renewal of a bookmaker's permit, betting agency permit and betting office licence are payable to the Clerk to the Licensing Justices. There is no power to vary these fees at present. This clause provides that the Secretary of State may vary the fees by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important that they should reflect the cost of the work involved in administration and issue. We shall be considering what the appropriate level should be.
I hope this explanation of the Government's attitude and intentions has been helpful. As I have tried to explain, this Bill would not mean that on Royal Assent betting shops could simply go ahead and install television sets and drink machines in their premises. I would stress again that there would be widespread consultation before any proposals were brought forward. Because such proposals are likely to represent a considerable social change, the Bill provides that any order with respect to the facilities that may be provided in betting offices will be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We feel it is right that such changes should require the specific approval of both Houses of Parliament.
With those comments, I commend my noble friend's Bill to your Lordships' attention.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their interest in the subject. The Bill has had something of a mixed reception, but nevertheless it has been an interesting debate. I can only hope that the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton will have reassured those who think rather like the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I accept that the Bill does put quite a lot on the Home Secretary's plate. I also hope that my noble friend reassured the noble Lord, Lord

1085
Mishcon, with his fair points about the recommen-dations of the Royal Commission. That came over fairly strongly in the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury. I must admit that initially I thought along the same lines, but I must tell the noble Marquess that the racing authorities support the Bill, and they are the people who I suppose would be affected if racecourse attendances dropped significantly. I should like to join him in his message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if we could reduce the on-course betting tax it would meet his point considerably.
I point out to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that I, too, am interested in greyhound racing and very much enjoy it, and I in no way wish to damage it. I very much hope that he will take advantage of the communication which I understand his association is having with the Home Office. I, personally, have never quite understood why the greyhound racing industry has not got a similar scheme to that of the racehorse industry, but I am sure that my noble friend will look after that aspect.
One way and another, we have to deal with the facts of life as they are, and, as I have said, since 1963 betting shops have been functioning mostly responsibly. It does not seem to me that we can expect them to go on in rather archaic conditions. I feel that they ought to be brought up to date to cater for the customers of 1984. For that reason I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until nine minutes past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 p.m. to 8.9 p.m.]

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Inquiry by S.V.A.C.
. Without prejudice to the generality of its functions under section 3(4) of the Valuation and Rating Act 1956 the Secretary of State shall ask the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council to consider as a matter of urgency the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present day system of valuation in Scotland; and for the purposes of this inquiry the Secretary of State may appoint five further members to the Advisory Committee. Its report should be made public").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List, which takes advantage of the existence in Scotland of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council which, with added members, could then attend to what I think is necessary:
"the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present day system of valuation in Scotland".
and make recommendations to the Secretary of State; and its report should be made public. There is no doubt—and the Government have recognised this—that there is considerable concern about valuations in Scotland.
Then we take their White Paper:
"The burden the taxpayer faces as a product of separately determined figures",
and the first one is the rateable value of the property. The other of course is the rate poundage. They give evidence there that the valuation system has caused concern. They talk about valuation anomalies, and point out, as they think, that they have already dealt with the most glaring ones. They say:
"Evidence suggests that compared with their counterparts south of the border, ratepayers may face a higher share of the rate burden because of valuation methods as distinct from differences arising from more recent valuations in Scotland, regional variations, and rental values. It may be necessary to introduce minor modifications to bring these particular ratepayers into line with their competitors south of the border."
With all due respect, I do not think that the Bill does that. I think we should know why. The Government also say in paragraph 9:
"Significant steps were taken during the last Parliament to remove some of the most glaring anomalies",
and they instanced the change in external plant and the changes in respect of communal accommodation, although so far as I can understand—and I think my noble friend Lord Carmichael has some evidence in respect of this—there are still discontents in respect of this in that it has not been exercised if it has been brought into the new system.
When you take the whole aspect of it since the 1956 Act, which is probably the more up-to-date basis of valuations in Scotland, there have been many changes. Remember—and this is something of which I have to remind myself at times too—that whenever we suggest that somebody should be relieved of rates it does not reduce the aggregate burden upon the rates, it just means that a narrower base, fewer people, will then have to bear the burden of the rates. By curing, or seeming to make a palliative in respect of individuals, or a group of individuals, you are creating greater anomalies by overburdening those who are left. We always have to bear that in mind in all the changes that have been made since 1956.
The 1956 Act itself took agricultural land out of valuation. That was a considerable change made there. Before the 1956 Act had come into force the burden of rates, which had been split between owners and occupiers, was fully placed upon the occupiers; those who actually paid the rent and occupied the property.
Then there was the business of industry. This was to get over the inequity between Scotland and England in respect of rates on industry. There was a 75 per cent. derating of industry in Scotland. That was changed. Later it became 50 per cent. There have been extensions in respect of charities and discretions to local authorities; there have been these changes in respect of the external industrial plant. That was a big drop in respect of the central area and in respect of the Shetlands. The Government did not come in to help in respect of that. It had to be borne by these regions themselves. It was a matter of millions of pounds.
When you add up all these changes, and the changes even now proposed within this Bill, there has been a narrowing, and a narrowing of what may well be proved to be an unsatisfactory situation. The alternative to domestic rates was produced by the Government in 1981. They said themselves:
"Many of those professioally concerned with rating and valuation matters believe that the technical basis of the domestic rating system is no longer satisfactory in some respects."
This was accepted by the Government. So much so that we had an Act of Parliament to give the Government the power, which they exercised, to change the date of revaluation, and a further power to make it either a general revaluation or a partial revaluation.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was here at the time, but the Government actually produced from that Bill a Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Order which said that instead of having a revaluation on a general basis in 1983–84.
"only such classes of lands and heritages as specified in the schedule shall be valued or revalued."
That was 19th January 1982, and there was going to be no revaluation of domestic hereditaments.
This of course was in keeping with expectations that they were going to get rid of domestic rates. They changed the law. They introduced the order, and then between February and 25th June 1982 another revaluation order was produced.
"The Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982"—
that is this one—
"is revoked."
So they decided that they would not have that, and they decided instead to have a complete revaluation in the year 1985–86. This has been a considerable floundering about in respect of valuation; what should be done about it and what should not be done about it, and shows that the Government have been in considerable difficulties over it and over their own pledges in respect of it.
It is interesting to note the situation even as we are discussing this matter here tonight. I do not know whether the Minister of State has gone, or whether he is preparing to go overnight with the rest of us, but the Minister is going to Perth to endure the pains and pleasures of the Scottish Tory Party in Perth. Today the party is discussing what? Rating and valuation. I think the Lord Advocate is wise to be here tonight and wise not to go to Perth tomorrow because of what he will be discovering are the feelings of the Tory Party, the Government having said that they think the rating system is just right as it is. Having been defeated last week, and having promised to look again at the whole system, they will pray in aid the pledge they gave to us in the Lords that they are considering it once again, but that was mainly the rating aspect. I am concerned with the fairness and effectiveness of the aspects of valuation.
The Lord Advocate will know that what is proposed for the anomalies in respect of certain properties or parts of properties, what is suggested in respect of reed beds and caravans, is setting aside legal decisions that

1088
have been made perfectly fairly and correctly by interpretation of the statutes by the Scottish courts. What the Government propose to do is to set aside the uncontrovertible decisions of the Scottish valuation courts to get what they think is a sense of fairness between Scotland and England. The more one pushes away the rights of Scottish courts the more anomalous it becomes. We see that in Clause 16.
I do not know whether the Lord Advocate knows the reactions of the Faculty of Advocates and the reactions of the Society of Assessors who are concerned about this and about the whole system of valuation. So is COSLA, which has suggested that there should be another method of valuation in Scotland, pointing out that the only thing in statute to guide the assessors in evaluating is what is laid down for dwelling-houses. It is perfectly clear there, but for non-domestic subjects there are formulae for gas, which is separate. The same thing is true of steel and railways. There was a very confused and complicated formula for electricity. There was only one man in Scotland who understood it and that was Tom Steele who was a Member of Parliament. No one else could quite understand it.
Then there was the reversion, on their own, by the assessors in Scotland to what they called a contractors' formula to arrive somehow or other at what they thought was a fair notional rate. There is no doubt that the anomalies persist. When the Government say that they have dealt with the anomalies on external plant and have treated Scotland the same as industry in England; that is all very well, but in Scotland we did not separately rate internal plant but in England they did. So anomalies, even with the correction of anomalies, still stand out.
It is about time that we considered the whole matter again. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which represents district authorities, the regions and islands authorities, suggests that we consider house valuations and put the system on to capital values. My answer to that is that it might be better, but why put valuations on a house? Why should the house be the standard and the basis of valuation for a person's ability to pay a particular share of the rates burden? The real person to value is the ratepayer. There is another reaction to that: why just the ratepayer who is the occupant and tenant of a house? What about the others who receive much from the services of local authorities but who pay nothing at all in rates? The whole system requires another look.
It is lucky that we have the Scottish valuation authority which is an expert on the subject. It has been receiving details of the anomalies all these years and sees the limit of meeting the anomalies by changes in the laws. It sees the limit in meeting the anomalies by giving abatements, which means that those who are left within the valuation system have to bear a bigger burden. There is no doubt that there is a justification for complaint.
I instanced at another stage the rateable values of football grounds. Rangers' football ground has a rateable value of £82,500 and the rates payment is £127,050. Manchester United is not £82,000 in rateable value, but £37,000. That club was able to pay £500,000 or more to Aberdeen the other day for a very

1089
good Scottish football player. Its rates burden was £64,935 last year compared with Rangers' £127,000. There is no fairness or equity there.
Queen's Park is an amateur team. It is not in very good shape in football terms at present and probably is lucky if it plays on alternate Saturdays to about 1,000 people, but its stadium is the Scottish national football stadium. The Scottish Office should know because we are trying to refurbish that stadium and make it worthy of modern days and worthy of Scottish football. We were going ahead with a considerable change, and were given authority by the Scottish Office one day; and at the weekend the Scottish Office sent a letter saying, "Don't go ahead". Believe it or not, this well-furnished, brainy Government had to pay £2 million and over in frustrated expenditure because the club took the Government at their word. The Government changed their mind and had to pay £2 million for nothing.
We are still in the process of building new stands there. Queen's Park is an amateur team; £55,000 in rateable value, paying rates of £84,700. It will have two very good games on the 19th when the Scottish Cup Final is played and then the following Saturday when Scotland play England. Apart from that—remember under the present aegis Scotland plays England at Hampden only once every two years—one can realise what revenue aspects and capacity mean for an amateur team.
Arsenal's rateable value is £30,000 and the rates payment is £63,000 compared with Celtic's rates payment of £99,000 and Queen's Park's £84,000. When you go to the well-known teams in Scotland, like Partick Thistle, supported here by my long-suffering but still loyal noble friend, it has a £9,850 rateable value and a rates payment of £15,169. That is, 22 per cent. of their income in the year before last went on rates. If you take Leeds United and Liverpool, about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of their income goes on rates. There is no equity there. Surely, it requires to be looked at. Do not tell me, please, Lord Advocate that it is all going to be seen to in Clause 16! It is not. That is the feeling of experts in respect of this.
We are trying to improve the clause, and it may be that the noble and learned Lord has some amendments to that clause as well; but, so far, there is considerable scepticism in the sporting field as to whether the Government will meet their promises. Their promises were quite clear in the White Paper because of what they said in respect of football stadia and racecourses—and I can give you the figures for racecourses. Ayr, where I live, represented in Parliament by the Secretary of State: rateable value, £57,384. If you take Newbury or Haydock Park, which are equivalent, their rateable value respectively is £12,900 and £11,000—it is five or six times that in Scotland. When you take what they actually pay, you get the same discrepancies. It is not justified, it cannot be justified in any sense.
It may be that it is because of the method of valuation. In Scotland, assessment is done by locally-appointed assessors. Once appointed, they are independent; they cannot be sacked and they are not responsible to the regional authority which employs them. In fact, as I remember the 1956 Act, they can

1090
only be sacked by a two-thirds majority of the council. For all practical purposes, they are completely independent. They do it on their own basis, much of which is quite different and quite mystic as against what happens in England and Wales, where it is done by the Inland Revenue.
In respect of football clubs, how, in England and Wales, they arrive at the football club valuations is something which I just do not understand either. It is certainly not what happens in Scotland. Because there is no competition, you cannot find an alternative tenant. There are no alternative tenants for these stadia, so the question of what somebody else would pay is not relevant. What they do in Scotland is to work on the basis of the contractor's principle, or the cost of the stadium. The Government come into this, too. As the result of what happened at one particular Celtic v. Rangers game when there was a tragic accident, the question of safety at football grounds came before Parliament. We passed an Act of Parliament and all grounds now must be licensed for safety. It meant that a tremendous amount of money had to be spent; spent by Aberdeen, by Celtic, by Ibrox. As a result of that, as soon as they spent money on it, along came the assessors and pushed up the rateable values. And this was a result of what the Government did.
When we talk about the income of these football clubs, we must remember that the Government get quite a lot out of it. They do not make any loss when the gates fall. They still get their VAT and they still get their cut out of the pools tax. If there were no football played, there would be no football pools to be taxed. The Government do very well out of football; but Scottish football, by the valuation system, is penalised. There is no doubt about that.
I do not think that we can be assured of fairness and equity as compared with our English counterparts coming out of Clause 16 of the Bill. I hope that the Government will look at this as something that is worth examining from the point of view of the present valuation system. Something new has got to be devised. It applies to racecourses, it applies to football authorities and it applies to indoor bowling as well. I have the figures in respect of indoor bowling for Auchinleck, in Ayrshire, where, for my sins, my daughter teaches at the Auchinleck Academy. The Auchinleck indoor bowling club has a rateable value of £19,747. Remember the rates! If you take Hartlepool, with the same kind of facilities, the rateable value is £4,500; Darlington is £4,900. But in an area pretty devastatingly hit, and certainly so at the present time with the miners' strike, it is £19,747.
Figures like this make people feel that we are being let down by the Scottish system. There must be some kind of changes made. I feel that this is one of the best ways: the Government should refer to the Scottish Valuation Council, with its additional numbers. It may well be that we could have a Scottish judge as someone from the valuation courts looking at this to see whether or not a better system could be produced. That is the basis of this new clause. I hope the Government will smile on it—and by that I mean smile benignly. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Although I am prepared to lay, as I think the phrase has it, all Lombard Street to a China orange that I was born nearer to Hampden Park than was Lord Ross of Marnock, it is not my intention to lead your Lordships across any of those fields on which Lord Ross has been playing tonight. But I am impelled to say just a brief word because I have resisted the temptation during your Lordships' discussions on the last two amendments to express strong disagreement with Lord Ross of Marnock.
On this occasion, I am happy to express wholehearted support from these Benches for this amendment. I do so by expressing merely that, against the background, much of which is history, which he has expounded this evening, I find it very difficult to believe that the Government can find any good reason for declining to ask the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, to consider as a matter of urgency the appropriateness, effectiveness and fairness of the present-day system of valuation in Scotland. Of course, it may be that the ingenuity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will enable him to express some convincing reasons against that. But, as far as matters have gone so far in the Committee, I find it very difficult to believe that there are convincing reasons for opposing this amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): The duties of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, which was constituted in terms of Section 3 of the 1956 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made reference, include advising the Secretary of State on any matter relating to valuation which he may refer to them. They therefore have a broadly based remit. In 1982 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the council to consider the problem of valuation anomalies alleged to exist between the Scottish valuation system and that of England and Wales, and matters of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred in connection with football grounds, racecourses and the like, were the subject of representations. The whole subject matter had been referred to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council already. The review was completed early in 1983, and it considered the very basis of valuation in Scotland.
In the recent past the council has also carried out a review of the entire valuation appeals procedure and has considered what improvements might be made in the current arrangements to make the valuation system even more comprehensible. In addition, it has reviewed many other valuation matters. Advice has been given to the Secretary of State on all these things by the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, and that advice, as your Lordships may know, is always made public in the council's annual report so that anyone who is interested may know exactly what the council has considered and what advice it has tendered after that consideration.
In that situation it does not seem to me that a case is made out at this stage for a further general inquiry of the type here proposed. The Secretary of State has ample power to refer any matter to the advisory council, but I think it would be fair to say that the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council is constituted in a way which enables it to give broad and informed

1092
advice on any valuation problem, and it has considered particular problems in that way. I am quite unable to see that there is any real basis at the present time for a further reference to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council of the general kind which is asked for here. The noble Lord can of course be assured, as can the noble and learned Lord. Lord Wilson of Langside, that the Secretary of State will certainly use the powers that he has, as he sees advantageous, for getting advice from the advisory council on any matter that may arise. I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord may feel able not to press this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I should like to be given a little more information about the limits of the consideration that is given by the advisory council, because surely they consider it within the limits of the present system. I am asking them to look beyond the present system to a fairer and better one, and to give us their advice on that. I can understand that they also should be in a better position than most, because since 1956 they have dealt with all the anomalies that have arisen one after the other; and it gets to the point that if you have dealt with a whole accumulation of anomalies you can see whether or not you are virtually toppling over a system that was rocking at the very start and which was subject to considerable difficulties.
The noble and learned Lord spoke about the appeals procedures and the changes made. We will come to that aspect later, because there are difficulties there and they have been aggravated by the fact that the Government, for the mistaken reason of thinking that they were going to deal with domestic rating on its own, put off the valuation for the first time in Scotland. I think the last time there was a revaluation in England and Wales was 1973, but we have never had any postponement of revaluation until this Government caused that to be done. The last valuation was 1978–79, and it was due again, in its five-year period, in 1983–84. It has now been put off for a general valuation in 1985–86. That has implications for the right of appeal of any person whose property is being valued in Scotland. Indeed, they have made some of their own difficulties in respect of that.
I do not think that is a good enough answer, and I hope that the Government will look at it again, not only in the light of what has been said here but also in the light of what has been said in Perth about the subject. They should have had a fair indication from the kind of criticisms put forward in Perth that not everyone in Scotland was satisfied with the present valuation procedures. You have the contractors' basis in Scotland in respect of the things I have spoken about, such as new stadiums, but it all depends on when the construction was done, as to the cost of it, and two or three years makes a tremendous difference to the cost.
In relation to the system that they are working, it may well be that some of the inflated rates—for example, in respect of Rangers—are inflated because of that. To my mind there is no justification for it in that respect where you are dealing with some fairly historic costs as against those which are right up to date. There is no justification, in fairness or equity, for the results that are reached. You have to take into

1093
account the fact that I do not see anything that is fairly going to deal with these glaring and very unfair anomalies that we have spoken about here. Therefore, although I am prepared to withdraw the new clause at the present time I hope that the Government will give a little more consideration to the extent to which they are meeting these anomalies by their actions. The other point is important, too—the extent to which you meet them in such a way that all you do is to put heavier burdens on those who are still left to unrebated valuations and, therefore, rates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Right of appeal on change of owner, tenant or occupier]:
8.48 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
("(2C) when revaluation is postponed, generally or partially, a right of appeal against existing valuations shall be conferred on all affected by the postponement." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would mean that, although you postpone revaluation, you give those who would have been appealing on the basis of the information that they have gathered during that five-year period a right to appeal as if the revaluation had taken place. The longer you keep people subject to an anomaly—in other words, penalising them—the more unfair it becomes. That is the reason for this amendment. I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can see some justice in it, but he may think it would be unfair to assume a revaluation which has not taken place and thus given the right to appeal. He will probably say that this is giving them a second chance of appealing in respect of a valuation roll that is fairly old. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This amendment certainly raises an interesting matter. First, I think it has to be borne in mind that the right which normally arises on a revaluation—the right to appeal against the revaluation figure—is in respect of the new one which is inserted as a result of the revaluation. Secondly, I am glad to say that it is really only because revaluations have been postponed. The noble Lord said that this was the first time. I think there was a postponement before, on the reorganisation of local government, because the revaluation was due, if I remember rightly, in 1976, and it was postponed to 1978. It was due again in 1983, as the noble Lord said, and it was postponed. But I believe that the remedy, if possible, is to avoid postponement and to have regular revaluations unless there is some good reason to the contrary.
It seems to me that to attempt to introduce a general right of appeal on a postponement is not very practical against the background of the other provisions that remain. In general, the people who would have some ground of appeal on a postponement are the very people who will benefit from Clauses 9 and 16 of this Bill. I think that the noble Lord earlier referred to Clause 16 when he may have had Clause 15 in mind. Clause 15 is the one about comparisons with England, while Clause 16 is the one that opens up more widely

1094
the appeal provisions. In my view therefore the best answer to the noble Lord's amendment is to try to avoid postponements of revaluation, and it does not appear to me that the amendment itself would produce a very workable solution in the event of a revaluation having to be postponed for the reasons which I have explained. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment in those circumstances.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In recent days we have been talking so much of people's rights in regard to local government Bills and extending rights to this and that person. But when you postpone revaluation, you take away a person's right to appeal. I can speak about my own case. We have just about finished the valuation roll and the appeals for the last revaluation, as a result of what happened in Troon, and lots of people feel that they have a right to consider what happened there in respect of a right to their own appeal. I feel the same in relation to a part of Ayr that was dealt with in a very hard way. The Secretary of State will know all about it, because a considerable number of people have written to him. If you postpone the revaluation, you postpone the chance to get the position rectified.
During these past five years, every time a house has been for sale and a picture has been put up of the house showing the rateable value, everyone has compared it with his own house and his own rateable value and was not aware of all these circumstances. But people become aware of them because they are pushed in front of their faces. Some houses are glaringly and obviously under-valued, from the point of view of the other person who is looking at them. I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that people have been cutting out these details and getting ready for the next revaluation and for their right of appeal in respect of properties near at hand. As the noble and learned Lord knows, in 1956 people could appeal only on the basis of a comparable subject within a limited valuation area. That was in the days when a large burgh had its own assessor, the county council had its own assessor, and so on. That was extended so that subjects anywhere in Scotland could be compared. That change was made after 1956.
I do not know how many people took advantage of that right, but now we are virtually getting that further extended into comparing subjects with those in England and Wales under certain conditions. It has meant that there has been growing up a burden of frustrated desire to appeal and to get at the assessors, in respect of valuations which, admittedly, were sometimes agreed to with a certain measure of reluctance at the time of the last revaluation, and avoidance of postponement is the right way.
We had that postponement of a revaluation that was due in 1983–84. The Government did not do what they expected to do in respect of the origininal postponement, which was to deal with the whole question of domestic rates. I have the whole facts here from the speeches of Mr. Rifkind in another place. There was no point in having a general revaluation when most of that work would be overthrown by the changes that would be made. But they were not made. The Government changed their mind between February and June and reverted to a purely postponed

1095
revaluation. All this has been unfair to a great many people and I hope that the Government will look at it.
It is not right to say that most of the people affected will be heartened by what is being done by Clause 9 and Clause 16. I appreciate that the clause has changed its designation between the other place and this place, and we can understand that it will be changing its designation again once other new clauses are put in. I do not wish to press this at the present time, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Jurisdiction in valuation matters of Lands Tribunal for Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37: Page 7, line 39, after ("decline") insert ("with reason stated").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which I feel the Lord Advocate will almost certainly be willing to accept. It is merely to say that when a complaint is declined an individual appeal reasons should be given. That appears to be part of natural justice. I hope that the Lord Advocate will realise that there has been an omission from the Bill and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This clause refers to the Lands Tribunal. It is one of the improvements that we are proposing in the Scottish valuation appeal system to enable the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to adjudicate as the tribunal of first instance in certain appeals. Of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland is a judicial type of tribunal, and therefore we assume that if it were to give a decision it would be a reasoned judgment. For that reason this phrase was not put in the Bill.
But in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised this matter and has, as it were, doubted whether that was sufficiently expressed, I think that his amendment is perfectly acceptable. It is in accordance with what we had in any event intended, and therefore I am happy to recommend that your Lordships should agree with Amendment No. 37.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38: Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 8.
The noble Lord said: The Secretary of State is here being given quite wide power. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain how often the power is likely to be used and how he sees it being used, and to say whether he does not think that it is drawn rather wider than is good for the community as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This is a power which is precedented in legislation of a technical character for the purpose of giving full effect to a new provision in primary legislation. We have examined the primary legislation and I sincerely hope that this power will never require to be exercised. But in a complicated
1096
field of this kind, there is a chance that something important may not have been noticed and it is therefore advisable to have a power of this kind—which will require affirmative resolution—to be in the Bill, so as to make sure that if this provision is required there is scope to give full effect to what Parliament is here approving. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that explanation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That explanation clears up a lot of the worries that we on this side had. The Lord Advocate is obviously concerned that this power is never used and has said that it has never been used before. Furthermore, and more important, it needs affirmative resolution. With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 18, after ("circumstances") insert (", by whom,").
The noble Lord said: This is another minor amendment. It is merely to find out exactly who will be able to make an appeal, whether a tenant or an owner. Subsection (2A) states:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations governing—
(a) the circumstances and manner in which an appeal or complaint may be referred to the Lands Tribunal".
I should like to know who can put the initial appeal to the Secretary of State before it goes to the Lands Tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Again, this is a matter of interest and importance that the noble Lord has raised. The system that we have sought to set up under this clause is that the Lands Tribunal will have power to determine any appeal or complaint under the Valuation Act referred to it by a valuation appeal committee; in other words, the parties go to the valuation appeal committee in the ordinary way and then it is for the valuation appeal committee to decide, on looking at the matter, whether it is a sufficiently important case or technical case to be referred to a rather more specialised tribunal. The noble Lord will see on line 36 on page 7 of the Bill: "referred to it by a valuation appeal committee".
That really answers the question that he has put, because the only body by whom the appeal or complaint can be referred to the Lands Tribunal is the valuation appeal committee to whom it was made by the party or parties in the first instance. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very happy with that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Constitution of lands valuation appeal court]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Separate entry in valuation roll of pitches for static caravans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: As to pitches for static caravans, I just want an explantion in respect of this because this is one of the cases where a judgment in respect of a decision of assessors has been upheld by the Scottish courts, the valuation courts, but the Government have seen fit by reason of what has happened in England to make a change here.
Remember that in respect of this the Scottish assessors and the English Inland Revenue were dealing with the same piece of legislation, and so it has been interpreted in one country in one way and in another country in another way. This is one of the things that I do not think we can applaud, a case where the assessors have been quite right, where they have been proved to be right by the interpretation of the Scottish courts, but as a result of what has happened south of the Border the Scottish law and Scottish practice is pushed aside and virtually what is applied here is the English system. That is not exactly the right way to do things. If there is something wrong with the legislation you should put it right in Scottish legislation and not by reference to what has happened elsewhere.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation here is that, as the noble Lord said, in the light of the then current Scottish legislation a decision was taken on the lines tht he has described, but those who are interested in these matters have felt that there was no particular reason why that should be the situation in Scotland while a different situation existed in England and Wales. It is not so much a question of, as it were, opting for decisions taken south of the Border rather than north of the Border, but it looked to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to be reasonable that the Scottish person interested in the site of a static caravan should have this option if he wished to exercise it.
I do not think the noble Lord has indicated any reaon why one should not have this option. There is no disrespect here to the Scottish court. The Scottish court decided on the basis of the then existing legislation that no such option should be allowed, but the Secretary of State considered in that light that it was right that this option should be conferred; this clause is for that purpose, and I hope your Lordships will allow Clause 12 to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Percentage derating of static caravans]:
9.6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("site") to ("shall") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: This is the provision where:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that the ratable value of a caravan site to which this section applies shall be the sum of the following amounts"—
and so on. Of course, it involves virtually the derating of caravans. The point I made before is that if we derate caravans or anything else it means there is no
1098
change in the burden of expenditure, but it means also that somebody else is taken out of paying rates or part rates and somebody else has to pay more. I propose to leave out these words in order to have a clearer explanation of what is being done here and the justification for doing it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The words that the noble Lord seeks by this amendment to have deleted are words that seek to ensure that the new provisions relate to exactly the same caravan sites and pitches as the definition in Section 3(1) of the 1956 Act; that is to say, a caravan site which is treated as a single unit of lands and heritages and the caravan pitches defined in the new Section 3A(3) in Clause 13 of the Bill. If we do not have a precise link between these two, new anomalies might be introduced. The words which the noble Lord seeks to delete remove any doubt as to what caravan sites and pitches are referred to, and I hope the noble Lord in the light of that will feel able to agree that these words are better left in.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to accede to the request by the Government in respect of that, but I wanted a little more information as to what the Secretary of State proposes. It may well come under clause stand part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate now able to tell us what the effect of this clause will be? It is headed "Percentage derating of static caravans". This means that the Secretary of State is taking the power to derate static caravans. Upon what will the noble and learned Lord base his decision about the percentage?
Lord Mackay of Calshfern: The noble Lord has accurately described the effect of the clause. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to make a deduction—my understanding is that the deduction which the Secretary of State would be intending to apply is the same one as applies in England and Wales—in order to give parity of treatment to this particular type of subject on both sides of the border.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I need a little more information than that. I should like to know exactly what the percentage is. I should also like to know exactly what, in aggregate, this will mean for Scotland. What is the assessed loss of revenue to a local authority? Do the Government intend to make up in any way this loss of potential revenue to local authorities?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord has said, when one removes anomalies, what one does, generally speaking, in this situation is to relocate the total burden. This type of removal of anomaly is no different from the rest, to which earlier the noble Lord so eloquently drew attention. The proposed percentage is 40, which I understand to be the same as in England and Wales. I am afraid that at this moment

1099
I do not know what the total would be for Scotland as a whole. Indeed, I am not absolutely certain that by itself this figure will be of any particular significance. That is the way the matter stands, as I see it, at the moment. The answer to the noble Lord's last question is that my understanding is that this will simply be a relocation of the burden on ratepayers.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, or somebody else, will find out exactly how much it is in aggregate before we reach the next stage of the Bill. This is bound very considerably to affect tourist areas. It will affect very considerably Kyle and Carrick and other places on the Ayrshire coast where there is a heavy concentration of static caravans. It might affect my own rates. I have to pay higher rates because of the generosity of the Secretary of State towards these areas. The Highlands of Scotland and elsewhere might also be affected.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: That is why I ventured to doubt whether the global figure was of much significance. I understand that the global figure is of the order of £700,000.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will appreciate that many parts of Scotland will be unaffected, while many other areas will be very seriously affected. The ratepayers in those areas will have to make up this loss of rateable value of £700,000. It is a quite serious point. When these points are added together, they result in a very considerable increase in the burden on particular groups of ratepayers. We tend to forget the effect that the accumulation of these correcting provisions will have because of the unfairness of the valuation system.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 42A:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time.
After section 243 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time.

243A.—(1) If it appears to the rating authority that Part of any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only the authority may request the assessor to apportion the rateable value between the occupied and unoccupied parts and on being thus requested the assessor shall apportion the rateable value accordingly.

(2) As from whichever is the later of the following—

(a) the date upon which lands and heritages the rateable value of which has been apportioned under section (1) above became partly occupied;

(b) The commencement of the financial year in which the request under that subsection relating to those lands and heritages was made,

until whichever of the events specified in subsection (3) of this section first occurs, the value apportioned to the occupied part of the lands and heritages shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the rateable value ascribed to the lands and heritages in the valuation roll.
(3) The events mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

(b) the end of the financial year in which the request was made;

(c) a further apportionment of the value of the lands and heritages taking effect under subsection (1) above.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above, if it appears to the rating authority that the part of the lands and heritages which was unoccupied at the date of an apportionment of the rateable value thereof under subsection (1) above has continued after the end of the financial year referred to in that paragraph to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the authority may direct that the apportionment shall continue to have effect for the next financial year; and subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (c) above shall have effect in relation to that year accordingly.
(5) In this section, "financial year" has the meaning assigned to it by section 96(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
(6) This section shall have effect as if it had come into force on 1st April 1984".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment as printed on the Marshalled List contains two particular misprints. In the third line, the phrase "and unfurnished" should be deleted. In subsection (2), between (a) and (b) the word "or" should be deleted. Subject to these alterations to correct the misprints, perhaps I may seek to explain the new clause.
The Government have repeatedly emphasised that the major purpose of the Bill is to protect ratepayers both in general and those in particularly difficult situations. Among the latter are industrial ratepayers, who face particular problems at the present time and whom the Government propose to help by removing entirely the liability to pay rates on empty industrial property. These proposals will, however, be subject to the well-established rule in matters of valuation and rating that use of any part of a property constitutes use of the whole and that rates are leviable on the whole and cannot be remitted on part of a property, speaking generally.
These other measures, therefore, to which I have referred will do nothing to help the ratepayer, particularly the business ratepayer, who during a downturn in business closes down part of his premises in order to cut costs. He is obliged to continue to pay full rates out of the reduced income. Given the importance of maintaining jobs, particularly in rural and remote areas where much might depend on the viablility of comparatively few businesses, the Government consider that it would be sensible to give rating authorities discretion to remit the rates payable on the unoccupied part of a property so that rates will be payable only on the part continuing in use. The measure proposed will give the rating authority absolute discretion in awarding relief. In this way, the rating authority will be able to apply its local knowledge and judgment to give help where it is considered to be most needed.
But of course complete discretion is accompanied by the entire financial responsibility. The cost of giving this relief will not be met by direct grant from the Government and nor will it be taken into account in the distribution of the resources element of rate support grant. The consideration of whether or not to give relief will have to be in the light of the situation that exists within the rating authority's area. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have one or two questions to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. First, we are grateful to him for leaving out the words "and unfurnished" in his manuscript

1101
amendment because very great dangers could arise in certain places.
I appreciate the importance of the assessor still having the overall right, particularly with industrial premises, to assess the occupied and unoccupied parts and of the judgment as to whether rates are payable to be ultimately a decision for the assessor himself. We are certainly aware of the importance of this in some of our cities. Up until the 1978 Act, there was in many cases—particularly those involving tenement property but other types of property as well—a tendency for some property owners to be quite happy about paying rates for a few years, knowing that property prices were rising steeply. Some houses stayed empty so long that they were almost unsaleable.
We believe it is important to arrive at a definition of some kind of the words:
"for a short time only".
The amendment makes the qualification referring to the property
"included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only".
This may be a technical point, but there must be some judgment involved. This takes us back to the horrors—although perhaps not in Scotland—of Centre Point, to remember how big this problem can be. I am sure that there must be other industrial, commercial and—who knows?—residential areas where the same might apply. This is a highly technical clause, and while it is welcome, it will be helpful if the noble and learned Lord can answer these points.
The other point that arises from time to time is the vexed question of election rooms. I understand that all parties use vacant properties for election rooms. I have heard certain people in an assessor's office say that rates could be applied to them. I understand that rates could be applied for a much longer period than that for which the rooms were actually in use. Are there any legal rights in respect of rooms occupied for a very short period for non-charitable purposes? Will they still escape the levying of rates or, again, is this something that will be for the local assessor to decide?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord referred to Centre Point. The situation there was that the property was kept empty and in this way rates were avoided in order to get, in effect, capital appreciation on the value of the property. The proposal before the Committee is not intended to create any difficulties of that kind. This brings me to the second point. The discretion to give this relief and the judgment of whether or not the property is to be unoccupied for a short time only is for the local authority to exercise. The rating authority has that discretion given to it. The noble Lord will see in the opening words of the new clause:
"If it appears to the rating authority that part of any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only.".
Therefore, it is the rating authority's judgment and a matter of completely free discretion on its part to decide whether or not it considers that that condition is met.
It will appear from the structure of the clause as a whole that the intention is that it should be within the rating year, generally speaking. There is a provision
1102
later on for extending it beyond the end of the rating year, but one can have a short time that carries over the end of the rating year. The idea is that it shall be comparatively short in relation to the rating year as a whole, but it is a matter of discretion for the local authority, which has complete power to make a judgment in the light of local circumstances. I believe that is a principle which the noble Lord will feel is acceptable.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to labour the point, but when I mentioned election rooms I also referred briefly to short lets of non-charitable places. Would they also be covered by the discretion given to the local authority, or would there be an overweening power by the assessor to say, "No, this is an assessor's job and not for the local authority"? It seems to me that there are two choices available. The local authority, which has no ultimate control over the assessor, would appear to be able to say to the assessor that he does or does not look at something. I may be getting mixed up here, but it seems to me to be a point that needs clarification.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The point about election rooms, if I have understood it correctly, is that if you occupy property for any part of the rating year you create the possibility of a liability for that year. I think that is the point to which the noble Lord refers. The correct solution to that depends on the existing provisions. The situation is that if you give, say, a short occupation of a property which is generally unoccupied, in view of the statutory provisions you put the person concerned in risk of paying rates for much more than the short period for which he is actually using the property. But this provision is not really dealing with the same problem as that. I hope that is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord's question.
Clause 14 agreed to.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Central space heating.
. When assessing a dwelling-house for rating purposes the assessor shall not increase that valuation on the grounds that some form of central space heating has been installed.").
The noble Lord said: This is an old one. I think I put down this amendment every time we have a valuation Bill, and that goes back a long time. It refers to this business of when you improve your house the assessor saying "Yes, the house is worth far more now and we shall put up your valuation". There are many people who, because of the feelings about clean air, and so on, felt that they should put in central heating. In fact, it is now the general thing that people have central heating rather than open fires. It is about time we accepted that people should not be penalised for doing the right thing but, rather, should be congratulated.
I do not know whether I will have the agreement of the Government on this. I am hoping that after the way I teased him about his last memorable Bill—the one on roads—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will do something here. There are forms of central heating which can be installed without

1103
affecting the valuation. There is a form of electric heating where you just plug in the radiators. Mind you, the whole house has to be wired up to do that, and although one can take the radiators away the actual changes made in the house, which are equivalent to what may well be required for gas or oil central heating, are still there; but it does not attract any penalty by way of increased rateable value. I think it is about time we put this one right.
Even in local council houses they have been putting in central heating. I do not know whether that affected their rateable value. I think it is time we got away from this particular one. It is self-evident. As I said, the Scottish Office should have all along known my feelings about it. Many people who have put in central heating, and done the right thing from the point of view of the proper use of energy, clean air and the rest of it, have then discovered with the increase in oil prices, as well as in electricity and gas prices, that they would have been far better leaving things alone and just freezing in the winter, instead of having to face the kind of bills and the last insult that they have a higher valuation to meet when it comes to paying rates. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like sincerely to support this amendment. I cannot understand how the Government could produce any argument for not supporting it. We are told all the time to economise in energy. Installing central heating is improving the house at the owner's cost. I do not see why he should then be charged extra rates when he has improved the property and conserved energy.
Lord Polwarth: May I simply ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to look very seriously at something which in this day and age is a complete anomaly?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. It will save such a lot of money, time and everything else and improve the value of houses. It is high time that something was done about this.
Lord Elphinstone: I also should like to support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, explained to us very clearly earlier on that when you make any deduction from one person's valuation you are in effect adding a burden on to somebody else. Therefore you must be very careful about the principles on which you proceed in order not to damage the fairness of the system. I personally have a house in which we have a central heating system, which is reflected in the valuation. Therefore I can well appreciate the sentiments that have been so clearly expressed from different parts of the House, but I would have to say that your Lordships must bear in mind what are the principles of rating valuation. They are that you have to consider what a tenant would pay by way of rent for the house which is the subject of valuation (if it is a house).
What has been considered is that if you have a heritable central heating system in your house the tenant will pay more for that than for a house that does
1104
not have a central heating system, for obvious reasons. Indeed, as your Lordships have said, the house is better by reason of the system. For that reason it is right in principle that there should be some addition, depending on the circumstances, for a heritable improvement to the house, which is what the central heating system is—no more and no less. It is as if you put an extra room on your house. The house is then worth more to rent, generally speaking, than it would be without that addition. Otherwise, presumably the addition would not have been made.
Attractive as this proposition is to those of us particularly who have central heating systems in our houses, I fear that it is not an amendment which can be justified in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in moving the amendment reminded us that storage heaters are out of valuation by reason of Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. But that is because these heaters are fixed so that they can be removed from their place without necessitating the removal of any part of the building. Therefore these are not really in the nature of heritable things at all. They are just like a heater—say a paraffin heater or some free-standing heater—that one would bring in. That kind of thing is not heritable. Therefore it does not add to the value of the heritable subjects from the point of view of the rent which a tenant would be prepared to pay.
While of course I very much regret not being able to give effect to such strongly expressed views from the Committee, I hope that in the light of these explanations the Committee will see that, however desirable from the individual point of view this might be, in the present state of the valuation and rating system, it is not really defensible in principle, and it would be to introduce an anomaly rather than to remove one.
Lord Elphinstone: May I for the moment say that we live in a colder part of the world than perhaps some of the Committee?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have heard it said that there is no colder place than Edinburgh. I do not know whether or not that is true. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily true, but it is very difficult to make variations according to the part of the country in which one lives. Of course the point is that the rating system, the valuation system, is primarily for dividing the burden of expenditure in a particular region; and, on the whole, the difference between regions, from the point of view of climatic conditions, is not as great as between, say, extreme parts of the whole country.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is very, very disappointing. But could I say thanks for the response that I have had from the Committee: from the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. from the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, and from the noble Baroness herself—and usually when she speaks the Front Bench quakes. I think we will need to consider this again, and probably at a more reasonable time. I think I even had the support of the noble Viscount. Lord Massereene.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Very strongly, yes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is twice in two debates. He will need to watch himself; he is getting a terrible reputation about himself. But, with all due respect to the Lord Advocate, he was not all that convincing. He mentioned that the rule had been breached by the reference to storage heaters and his suggestion that you can just lift them away. Of course, they are all linked up to the electricity system. In most cases it has meant that the heaters have had to be specially wired in order to do that. It means in many cases also that there has to be a special meter in respect of that system. So from that point of view there are very considerable changes to the property. There are forms of electric heating, quite apart from storage heaters, that have breached this general rule because there is a notional feeling that you could take them away. If you take them away you leave a great deal of material which has had to be put there in order to get the value out of these heaters. Now these are changes as well.
He tells me, "Well, it would be unfair"—certainly, when we think of the number of people involved, it would be expensive. But it must be remembered that a considerable number of people are affected, and I think probably it will eventually be a majority of people; so it will all cancel itself out. Do we want to encourage this or not? I think we do want to encourage it for the proper use of energy. We are told to save energy. And an efficient authority is one of the best ways of saving it. I knew the previous Lord Elphinstone very well. I do not know where the present noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone, lives but he thinks he is in the coldest part of the world.
Lord Elphinstone: It is getting near to it!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Getting on for it? You must be coming near Edinburgh then! I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know of the rigours in certain parts of Scotland. We want to encourage, and you do not encourage by penalising, by imposing an extra tax. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again. In view of the enthusiasm for this particular amendment, I have to withdraw it; but I will put it on the Marshalled List again. I will write it much more carefully next time so that even the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, himself will probably go to the Back-Benches and get up and support me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Valuation Acts to shootings.

.—(1) In the Valuation Acts, wherever the expression "lands and heritages" occurs it shall be interpreted to extend to and include shootings but only where such shootings are let.

(2) Shootings which remain in the occupation of the owner shall not be entered in the valuation roll, and any reference in any enactment to the person appearing from the valuation roll to be the owner or occupier of such shootings shall on and after 1st April 1985 have effect in the case of such shootings as if the reference to the valuation roll were omitted.

(3) In this section "let" means in relation to shootings the grant of a tenancy, whether formal or infomal, for any specified period.

(4) In this section the expression "the Valuation Acts" means the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854, the Acts amending that Act, any other Act relating to valuation and includes this Act.").

The noble Lady said: Contrary to what some noble Lords may suppose. I must say that I do not have an interest to declare. My shooting is let and I hope it will remain so; the same applies to my husband's; and I myself do not shoot.
There is a difference in the treatment of sporting rights for rating purposes in Scotland and England. In England sporting rights are rated only if severed from the occupation of the land through a formal lease, whereas in Scotland, even if there is only a sporting potential, that right is assessed to rates in spite of the fact that an owner does not, or does not even wish to, exercise those rights. This is a manifestly unfair anomaly and cannot be said to be even totally consistent with the Scots law relating to heritable property. For example, where a dwelling-house is vacant of both occupier and furniture for a period in excess of three months the owner is refunded rates for such period of non-occupation. This situation could be compared with the estate or farm where game may not be artificially reared nor is there any exploitation of the sporting right.
This amendment is designed to bring the Scottish law on the rating of sporting rights more into line with the law in England so far as shootings are concerned and should result in shootings which were in hand being taken out of assessment, while those shootings which were let, however informally, would still be assessed to rates as at present. I think the tone of the recent White Paper, Valuation and Rating in Scotland—Proposals for Reform, indicated that the Government were prepared to depart from their previous entrenched view as to anomalies. As an example, the removal of reed beds from the valuation roll in Clause 14 brings the law into line with the law of England.
I think that a similar course of action should be adopted towards the rating of sporting rights in Scotland, which at present are the subject of unfair treatment compared with England. Up to now the Government's view has been that of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council—that the treatment of sporting rights should be consistent with treatment of other heritable rights in Scotland. In view of the Government's intentions expressed in the recent White Paper, I hope they will accept that such a blatant anomaly as clearly exists with regard to the rating of sporting rights in Scotland should now be removed by legislation.
A similar amendment was put down by the honourable Member for Dumfries, Sir Hector Munro, at Committee stage in another place and was rejected on a basis which in fact is not correct. The Minister stated that in Scotland shooting and fishing rights are heritable subjects in their own right whether or not they are severed from the land over which they are exercised. He then referred to the need to maintain consistency in the law. This is not a correct statement of the law, as neither shooting nor trout fishing rights can be separated from the land over which they are exercised; that is to say, they cannot be sold off as separate rights.
The present situation is very hard on many farmers and small landowners, and moreover it is bad for conservation. If one is going to have to pay rates whether or not one shoots, the temptation is to let to

1107
tenants. And tenants who are paying rent are likely to expect to shoot more than may be advisable. After all, it is not going to worry them if they overshoot when they have taken the shooting for only one week, one month or one season. They can go elsewhere next year, leaving a desert behind them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Minto: As my name is associated with this amendment, it might be helpful to the Committee and also to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if I speak immediately after the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I also have to declare what I suppose is called a "non-interest". I make no bones about it: I shoot. I have property in Scotland over which I shoot. I have friends in Scotland with whom I shoot and I am very lucky to do so. But in every single instance—and I do mean every single instance—the properties, whether they are mine or the properties over which I shoot, are let and for that reason they pay rates. This amendment would in no way stop them from continuing to pay rates. Therefore, I believe that I can genuinely say that I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this particular amendment.
My property in Scotland is surrounded on its marches—and if there are any noble Lords present from England perhaps I should should say "its boundaries"—by a number of farms, few of which have woods suitable for shooting and even fewer of which have game upon their properties at which to shoot. These farms extend well beyond my property. To the east it is necessary to travel six miles before one comes upon a keepered estate; to the south one has to go the same distance; to the west it is necessary to travel 12 miles to find a keepered estate; and to the north the distance is so great that I have, quite truthfully, not worked it out.
It will be clear to your Lordships' Committee that the areas which I have defined are so extensive that there are many, many owner-occupiers who are paying rates for shooting rights but who have no intention whatever of ever running an organised shoot. If on the odd occasion—and 1 am sure this happens—the owner-occupier does take out his gun and goes to shoot at some extraordinarily stupid cock pheasant that has strolled on to his land, it is a very expensive way of putting something into his pot, because the sporting rights on a farm in my part of the world of, for example, anything between 250 and 350 acres can in fact be as high as £150. So it is an expensive pheasant that one pops into one's pot, and I really do not think that it is justifiable.
We are told in the White Paper that it is the Government's intention to remove anomalies. This matter has been mentioned already and very fully by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. However, this particular amendment requires looking at from another point of view as well. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—and I am sorry that he is not here because he has continued to make it incessantly since the first day of the Committee stage—that we narrow the base every time we derate or devalue something. That is absolutley true. No one who, like myself, has been a regional councillor in a Scottish region and who has been responsible with a handful of fellow councillors for the finances of a region can
1108
possibly think otherwise; it would be completely wrong.
Therefore, in my view this leads one to support pressure being brought to bear upon the Government to bring forward at the earliest conceivable date a proper and full review, because, quite frankly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, says that it is wrong to narrow the base and the Government say that it is wrong to bring forward a review at this point in time, then those are two wrongs and they do not make a right. It still means that the owner-occupiers of these properties are, in fact, spending very large sums of money for absolutely nothing. Therefore, the system is wrong.
I made this point in your Lordships' House (I do not think it was in Committee, but I cannot quite remember) to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, some time ago in almost exactly the terms of the first amendment during the Committee stage of this Bill. I was told by the noble Earl that he would be looking into it in the early future. That was some little time ago and nothing seems to have been done. So I am concerned that that seems to have been put off and put off, and I do not think that that is very helpful to any of us.
Finally, speaking as someone who lives in a rural community and having admitted quite openly to noble Lords that I shoot, I should also like to make this point. Up until the end of the war and for some few years afterwards my property sustained no fewer than five gamekeepers. Today I can barely afford to warrant one. This applies to all the people with whom I shoot. It has led, in percentage terms, to a very large reduction in the total number of gamekeepers, and it has increased the unemployment factor in the countryside. It is an absolute tragedy that we shall continue along this line for want of not being able to pay them for doing nothing.
What do gamekeepers in fact do? There is an extraordinary feeling that gamekeepers are there to put grouse, pheasants, or whatever, over the heads of guns. That is simply a small part of their job. Historically, they have always been responsible for controlling vermin. Although it is true that over a period of time, myxomatosis did reduce the number of rabbits in Scotland, sadly, that is not the position now. There are areas of Scotland where there is still an element of myxomatosis and a fair reduction in the numbers of rabbits. But there are other parts where myxomatosis has no effect whatever. Quite definitely this has a detrimental effect upon farm productivity, because, where they are really virulent, rabbits do untold damage to both cereal and root crops.
Therefore, there is a need not only for large properties but for smaller properties and owner-occupied farms, to be able to sustain if only a part-time gamekeeper to ensure that the vermin are kept down and that farm productivity is maintained. I make no further point. I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun. said, and how she said it. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Briefly, I should like to support the amendment as my name is down to it. I have an interest to declare in that I shoot, but the only shooting I let is red deer stalking. I also let fishing

1109
rights, which are not applicable to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has left the Chamber, but earlier he was comparing unfavourably the burden of Scottish rates compared to England. Here is another instance where, as has been pointed out, one is, as an owner occupier of shootings still having to pay rates if they are not let.
I have to declare an interest in so far as I have rough shooting. There are a few grouse, ptarmigan, woodcock, and duck, but I never let them because they are not good enough. They cover quite a large area and I do not let them but I am rated on them, which I think is unfair. Shooting too is dependent on the climate, especially rough shooting and shooting of migratory birds, and you really cannot let rough shooting because it is of very little value. You might let it one year, or one season, and there would be little to shoot, and of course another season the tenant might be lucky.
I can endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said: rating unlet shooting can cause unemployment. If somebody has shootings, and say he is a conservationist, and if he is highly rated on his shootings which he does not let, then he will probably have to get rid of his keeper, as the noble Earl pointed out. I should like to ask the Government whether they would give some encouragement that the rateable burden on shootings that are not let and are not bringing in any money will be eased, or will not be entered on the valuation roll anyway for rateable purposes.
If we want to be really fair what ought to happen if shootings are rated, as they are at the moment in Scotland whether they are used or not, is to have valuation every year. Supposing one did let—not that I do—and one had a good year: well of course for the next year one would be rated quite highly. But for the next three or four years one might have bad years. Though at the end of that period I suppose it would be averaged out, in the meantime one would have had to pay the wages of one's keepers and have little coming in from the shootings. I heartily support the amendment.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: May I briefly declare an interest and say that I own a few hundred acres of marginal and hill land which nature has populated with a few wild pheasants and other species of game, none of which enjoys any protection from predators, whether animal or human. I reckon that each bird that falls to the guns of my friends, family, and me for the pot contributes about £2 to the local rates. While I appreciate the problem of narrowing the base of the rating system, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he can justify the continuance of this basic difference between the practice in Scotland and south of the Border.
Lord Elphinstone: It is worse than the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, suggested, in that I understand we are being rated on our bags between 1972 and 1977, which bear no relation to what we may be killing at the moment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: There are two problems which fall to be distinguished: the problem of how you
1110
should value shootings, and the problem of whether they should be valued at all. The point that my noble friend has just referred to is a point on the question of how you should value shootings, whether or not they are let. That is a point that this amendment does not address. However important it may be, I am not sure that I could assist much upon it tonight.
The fundamental question is in what circumstances these shootings should be rated. That is the point to which the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is directed. I should like to begin by express-ing my gratitude to her for explaining to me so fully before we came to the Chamber precisely what she had in mind. I am grateful also to those who have supported her for the clarity with which their support has been expressed.
The problem is that we have here a situation from England and Wales which I want to explain as briefly as I can. In England and Wales sporting rights are entered in the valuation list as such only if they are severed from the land over which they are exercised. Until recently the view has been taken in England and Wales that rights could be entered in the list only if they were severed by means of a formal deed. This has led, with an arbitrary distinction of that kind, to many attempts to work away at the boundary and to rub the boundary away, so many sporting rights are being given out—if I may use that rather inaccurate expression—under more informal arrangements. The question has arisen whether they should still be in the valuation list. I understand that there are cases now waiting to be heard in England and Wales that may alter this and lead to more subjects being brought into valuation. This, however, would not alter the position concerning rights that are kept in hand. But it illustrates the difficulty of an arbitrary distinction based upon whether or not the subjects are let out.
In Scotland the position was at one time the same as that in England and Wales. But it was thought—and this is almost 100 years ago—that that was entirely unsatisfactory. Shootings were not entered in the valuation roll unless they were actually let, and this peculiarity was removed by Section 6 of the Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland) Act 1886, which placed a duty on the assessor to enter separately the yearly value of shooting over lands and deer forests. The present amendment, in effect, seeks to reverse the effect of the 1886 Act. But it is only right to consider what that would lead to.
Let us take as an example neighbouring estates in Scotland where one is let out and the other is not, but the value of the shootings is the same on both. That is perhaps somewhat hypothetical, but it is illustrative of the principle. They have similar shooting potential and similar bags. Surely they should not have different valuations and make different contributions to local rating resources. But if this amendment is approved the tenant of the let shoot will continue to pay rates while there would be no similar burden on the exactly similar estate next door where the shooting is not let out but perhaps the owner runs paying house parties and so still derives considerable income from the shoot, indirectly, but not by means of a let out. Surely, therefore, to introduce this amendment would be to produce a considerable anomaly into the Scottish system.

1111
Our first priority must be to ensure equality of treatment within Scotland, for the primary purpose of the valuation system is to apportion the rate burden in any one area, and like subjects in the same area must be treated alike; otherwise, one introduces a fundamental unfairness. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, clearly explained, the White Paper seeks to identify, and in the Bill we seek to eliminate, anomalies between our system and the system in England and Wales, where it is possible to do that. But in our judgment it is not fair to do that if, as a result, much greater anomalies are introduced into the Scottish system. For that reason it does not seem appropriate to give effect to this amendment.
We have considered this matter very carefully. The noble Lady referred to the debate in another place. I can assure her that the matter has been very carefully considered as a matter of principle, and, for the reasons I have sought to explain, the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was that he could not see his way to giving effect to this amendment, although of course he did not have the benefit of the eloquent speeches to which we have listened this evening. But I think he had the points that have been made this evening in his mind when his decision was taken.
Viscount Massereene of Ferrard: If the proprietor is letting out to guests, and if they stay in his house for two or three days' shooting, surely he could be rated on that. It has to appear in the estate accounts so I should have thought that he could be assessed on that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: At the moment he will be assessed on the value of the shooting. But he will not be assessed on the value of the shootings in these circumstances if this amendment is passed because these shootings are not let. He has people with him staying in his house who enjoy the shooting along with him but he has not let the shootings. Therefore, in terms of this amendment, these shootings will escape valuation altogether. The noble Viscount is right. They could be assessed, and that is what happens now. I am saying that if the amendment is passed they would cease to be assessed and it seems to me to be manifestly unfair to introduce a greater anomaly into the Scottish system itself than the amendment would remove between the Scottish and the English systems.
Lady Saltoun: What the noble and learned Lord has said about the owners who entertain house parties with paying guests is true. They are, I think, a fairly small minority because a great many owners are neither willing nor able to do this. As the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has said, in most cases what is paid for these shooting house parties goes through the estate accounts, and therefore evidence could be produced that the shooting was let. I may be wrong there. In drafting this amendment we wanted to draft something that would take this into account but it has been an extremely difficult problem to find suitable wording. This seems to be one of the biggest problems over this amendment. I wonder whether there is any way in which the noble and learned Lord can reconsider this matter with a view to finding wording that would cover it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Very briefly, what I am seeking to point out is the difficulty in principle over the type of amendment which the noble Lady is proposing. I have not been able to think of any way of removing the anomaly which this amendment introduces. Parliament thought of it in 1886 and I have not been able to improve on that in the time since then.
The Earl of Minto: I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord can remember 1886. He looks so young.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is amazing what the years can tell us.
Lady Saltoun: It is a very long time since 1886. It is 98 years. I appreciate that if nobody has been able to find better wording in those 98 years, it must be a difficult task. I wonder how much time and trouble has been taken during those 98 years to find better wording. I wonder whether before Report stage the noble and learned Lord might see if he could find better wording.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: 1 think the best that I can do is to say that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the speeches that have been made this evening.
Lady Saltoun: With that very kind and considerate remark from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I will await developments at the Report stage with a feeling of hope.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Comparison with hereditaments in England and Wales]:
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 39, after ("Wales") insert ("serving a directly comparable purpose, but").
The noble and learned Lord said: My noble friends Lord Grimond and Lord Mackie of Benshie regret very much that they are unable to be present at this hour for this sitting of the Committee, and they have asked me to move this amendment which stands in their names. This I am happy to do, albeit that I have certain reservations—as indeed have my noble friends—about the drafting of the amendment. Its effect, as is apparent on the face of it, is to provide that hereditaments in England and Wales which may be relied on by way of comparison must be hereditaments which serve a directly comparable purpose with the Scottish hereditaments.
The amendment is a probing one and it derives, I understand, from a certain local anxiety in the Northern Islands that it might provide a foundation for a more or less significant degree of derating in relation to certain of the industrial oil installations in the area. We seek some kind of reassurance, if that can be given, by the noble and learned Lord about that. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can understand that people in the Northern Islands might wonder how, for example, Clause 15 has affected the situation of particular subjects. It is very difficult for me to do more than say that if there are no comparable subjects in England and Wales they have nothing to fear. If there are comparable subjects in England and Wales they might then be compared with them. I do not understand that this amendment really draws attention to any particular point that would be of much use one way or the other.
"Serving a directly comparable purpose",
does not really seem to me to convey any very accurate sentiment. But, so far as I know, there are no subjects in England and Wales that could be regarded as comparable to the subjects which are the particular concern of the noble Lords who tabled this amendment. However, that is very much a matter of fact upon which it would not be appropriate for me to do more than say what I have said.
Lord Wilson of Langside: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: We will need to gallop on because we are running short of time. It is a shame, because we are coming to perhaps one of the most contentious of the clauses and there are various amendments. It is a pity that we could not take them all together. It may be a good idea to take them all together so that we get some substance of whatever changes the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is going to make by what he says. The purpose of my amendments is to leave out certain words. Leaving out those words would considerably widen the scope of a subject that might be brought in, though once again there is the question of appeal.
The Government claim—certainly in another place—that this will solve all the problems of race courses, football stadia and possibly other things as well. But I do not think it is exactly the answer that people expected from the Government, bearing in mind what was said in the White Paper. They listed there all the various valuation anomalies and mentioned caravan sites, commercial reed beds, spectator sports stadia and so on. They stated:
"The Government's policy is in summary to provide immediate relief through a measure of derating to the above categories of non-domestic ratepayers, the rate burden on whose business property is for valuation reasons substantially out of line with that of compara-ble properties in England and Wales".
Clearly the Government have not met that pledge. They have done so in respect of reed beds, caravan sites and caravans, but they have not in respect of one of the subjects, which is the spectator sports stadia.
Later on in that same paragraph, paragraph 18, of the Valuation and Rating in Scotland: Proposals for Reform, the Government say:
"Longer-term measures will be of assistance to all classes of Scottish ratepayers and will operate through improvements to the appeal system, by allowing evidence that rental values have fallen … allowing the citation of valuations listed south of the Border and improving the machinery for hearing appeals".
In the last phrase rests the justificaion for this clause. But I ask your Lordships to remember that it is only in the longer term that this will be available.
The other difficulty is that there is no direct change that will lead to an improvement. It is all based upon appeal and allowing the citing of comparable subjects south of the Border. It seems there is to be no change in the attitude of the assessors. They will go on as they have been doing and then it will be up to the occupiers of the hereditaments who are seemingly offended by what is being done to appeal, when they have this ground of appeal that is not there at the moment.
This will depend, first, on the attitude of the Scottish courts. The whole thing is based, as I understand it—and I assure noble Lords that this is a very complicated subject—upon the fact that for football stadia and race courses in Scotland there is no other tenant prepared to compete for the subjects under appeal. There is no rent and there is no notional rent. There is an annual value fixed by the Scottish assessors, based mainly upon the system which I mentioned earlier. As I understand it they can bring in comparable subjects and get a rent valuation which might be comparable—and I have been reading quite a lot about this—but there is no evidence that there is a rent paid there, either.
There is no reliable evidence on such properties in England and Wales, so what do we come down to? There is reached there an annual value, and you are not going to be comparing a rent, because there is none in Scotland; you are going to be comparing an annual value reached in Scotland by one method with an annual value reached in England by another method. Unless those who hear the appeal are prepared to consider the merits of the methods of assessment, then there is going to be no real appeal at all.
To my mind, this is a very important subject. I do not think it is open to the Government to be able to argue that they can give orders to the appeal authority, be it the Lands Tribunal or the courts. I do not think that is possible for the Government. We are dependent entirely on the decisions that the appeals authority will take. It may well be that they will dismiss the whole thing. They may say, despite the changes that are being made by the Government, that there are in Scotland comparable subjects. There is Hampden Park as against Ibrox, or Celtic Park, Firhill, Pittodrie, and, in different parts of Scotland where there is no rental evidence, there is annual value evidence reached by a particular method.
I have read the debates in the other place. I have read what the Minister said—that they are satisfied that somehow or other they have so worded it that the Lands Tribunal will have to consider this, whether or not they make any decision on it. In relation to England and Wales the Government have this covered. Any annual value that is in the roll in England and Wales dates from the year 1973. It is not up to date. It is true that there has been no change in the roll since that time, and the Government recognise this because they say in one of the Subsections that the Lands Tribunal will have regard to when that annual value is fixed.
The thing is complicated; the thing is difficult; to my mind it is very doubtful in its outcome. That is why I

1115
put in yet another matter one should have regard to—that is, the actual burden of rates paid. That is what eventually really matters. It is something that stands out in relation to the inequity of treatment of the sporting stadia in Scotland as compared with those in England. It is for that reason that I tried to make it easier to get the thing before an appeals tribunal and to have the appeals committee somehow or other judge the equity as between Scotland and England. But these doubts remain, and I wish I could be as sure as eventually I think Mr. Michael Ancram in another place seemed to be that it would work that way.
I have had advice from experts in this field, and they are very doubtful indeed as to what will happen unless those who hear the appeal move away from rent and consider, first, the result and, secondly, the methods of reaching that result in Scotland as against England, the fairness of one against the other. It can only be by way of appeal in the first instance that it can be discussed. After you go there, you are entirely in the hands of the judgment of those hearing the appeal. The Government cannot be so certain as they were when they wrote the White Paper about the help which will be afforded to race courses and to establishments like bowling alleys and sports stadia. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord has suggested that, although we are dealing with Amendment No. 46, we should take account of the amendments which both he and I have proposed in relation to Clause 15 and speak together to them. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has indicated that she does not intend to move Amendment No. 47C, a drafting amendment. Therefore I shall not take account of it but will seek to take account of all the other amendments which have been put down to the clause.
I shall try to explain the situation, as I see it, in relation to the clause. First, one has to distinguish between the rates paid and the rateable value, which is the basis on which the rates are paid. The rate poundage is a matter, in effect, of the expenses of the local authority, and it is sought to be controlled by Part I of the Bill. Turning to valuation for rating, Part II of the Bill, that is what Clause 15 is about. As the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, indicated earlier, concern has been expressed that what appear to be similar premises in Scotland are rated at, say, x, whereas corresponding premises in England appear to be valued at about half x. Those who are in charge of these matters in Scotland feel aggrieved and believe this to be an anomaly. It is towards that anomaly that the clause is directed—the idea that there is a basis in England which is much lower than the basis which has been used hitherto in Scotland in situations where no rental evidence is available.
In that situation, the law at present is that you may look at England and Wales, but only at rents—not at valuations or values in the valuation list. As the noble Lord said, it is very unlikely that there will be let premises in England and Wales, either, in the classes to which we are referring. Therefore, under the present Scottish law, unless one is allowed to look at values in the valuation list, one cannot make effective comparisons with England and Wales. It is that which the clause is intended to alter so as to make it possible to found, by way of comparison, on valuations entered
1116
in the valuation list in England of properties which are comparable to the properties we are seeking to value in Scotland.
The noble Lord mentioned that there is more than one property in a particular class in Scotland, but when one seeks to put values on the properties they are all without values. We start from the situation where, at the beginning of a revaluation, a number of properties—all the football gounds in Scotland, to take the example nearest, perhaps, to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—have no values at all. The question is how to obtain a value for them. The answer, in terms of Clause 15, is that in considering what the values should be, the appeal committee, the lands tribunal or the valuation appeal court will have regard to the values in the valuation lists in England and Wales for these properties. If there appears to be a pattern for such values disclosed by the valuation list in England and Wales, it will afford a proper basis of comparison for arriving at the answer for which we are looking for the Scottish subjects. That is the basic principle of the clause.
The noble Lord says that this is an appeal provision, but the assessors are valuing against the appeal system—in other words, within the framework of the appeal system—and the assessors, doing their job properly, will take account in their valuations of the matters which the appeal court and the appeal committee will take account of in considering any appeal from the assessors' valuation. That is the nature of the system and the way in practice that the criteria have been laid out in the past.
Clause 15 is an amendment to an existing clause which is framed according to the same approach. A number of questions have been asked in relation to Clause 15. The first concerned the opening words of the provision:
"only if the evidence available as to lands and heritages in Scotland comparable to those which are the subject of the proceedings is not adquate to enable the committee or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to draw conclusions".
The question has been asked by the noble Lord: what will happen if there are no subjects at all in Scotland comparable to the subjects of appeal? We believe that point is covered because in that case there will be no adquate evidence because there are no subjects at all. But a doubt has been posed, by the Faculty of Advocates particularly, and we have sought to meet it by making clear that if there are no comparable subjects this provision will apply; or if the comparable subjects do not yield sufficient evidence of rents, again the provision will apply. So we cover that point.
The second question that has been raised is whether, by our clause, we are altering the existing law to prevent actual rents being looked at and confining attention only to valuations. To make that plain we have proposed the later amendments to make it clear that actual rents are still available for comparison in England and Wales, if there are any. When it comes to the kind of subjects to which the noble Lord has referred, I do not think that there will be. But if there are actual rents in England and Wales—such as there were, for example, in the Portland Cement case—then they will be looked at, taking account of all the circumstances. That is the purpose of the later amendments in my name.

1117
The last point concerned examining the total sum paid in rates. The noble Lord said that that is the ultimate point at which the person concerned will look. We have dealt with that aspect because the valuation in England is on the basis that the tenant pays the rates in a subject which is valued at a net annual value, and that is the same basis as is applying in Scotland in such subjects. In both cases, one assumes that the tenant is paying rates and therefore that the burden of rates is properly taken into account in the rent that is in question.
The purpose of the clause is as I have explained, and I believe that it meets the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has put forward. I hope that I have been able to explain satisfactorily why, in our view, it does that. I have tried to follow the steps through as logically as I can. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and will be prepared to agree to the amendment standing in my name being given effect to.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the attention he has paid to this aspect in the short time we have had available to us. 1 would prefer to study what he has said, and its implications. I felt that there was a slight jump in the latter part of his argument in relation to the notional rent being equated with the burden of rates, which he said I hoped to meet by the addition of the words in my amendment, taking into account the actual rates paid. He said that that point was met, but I am not too happy with what he said. I am prepared to consider his comments, and in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we shall have another chance to approach this subject—I hope at a more convenient time—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 10, line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("—
(a) there is no").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already dealt with this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 47B:
Page 10, line 42, after ("proceedings") insert—
("; or
(b) such evidence as is available in that regard").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have also dealt with this amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 47C not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 47D, 47E and 47F:
Page 11. line 10, leave out ("taken to be") and insert ("treated as").
line 11, after ("hereditament") insert ("(as at the date as at which its net annual value was ascribed to it)").
line 20, leave out from ("section") to end of line 21 and insert ("to make such adjustment as is, in their opinion, necessary—

(a) to its rent as established by the ebvidence, so as to take account of (amongst any other things) the date at which that rent became payable;

(b) to its rent as established under subsection (1B) above, so as to take account of (amongst any other things) the date as at which, under that subsection, that rent is to be treated as payable.".".

The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps we may take Amendments Nos. 47D, 47 E and 47F en bloc. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Alteration of "material change of circumstances "]:
[Amendment Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.] Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Amendments and repeals]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years after the passing of this Act unless continued in force by an order approved by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I shall move this amendment very quickly. We will want to watch exactly what happens under the Bill and see that it adequately meets all the points raised. Therefore, I suggest that the provisions,
"shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years after the passing of this Act"—
and that will take us beyond the next revaluation period—
"unless continued in force by an order approved by Parliament."
In other words, the Government will not need to come back for legislation: they can continue it with an order.
The old idea used to be the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts under which important Acts of Parliament were continued for many years. I remember one in Scotland, believe it or not, on the 30 miles an hour speed limit which was carried forward from year to year under that procedure for nearly 30 years. The amendment would give the Government the opportunity, or expectation, to justify the continuation of the changes in the Bill and come back to Parliament to keep them in force. We would then have them under review. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: We have had an opportunity to consider these provisions in the ordinary way. They are not in the nature of being temporary provisions. In the Government's view a provision of the kind proposed in the amendment would be extremely exceptional in this type of legislation. We believe that the legislation is satisfactory as permanent legislation for the reasons which have been explained to your Lordships at the various stages of the Bill. I certainly could not accept the proposals in this amendment on behalf of the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Government are right to refute this amendment. In covering the whole Bill I

1119
drew it far too widely. But there are certain provisions where there are considerable fears that there may be a clogging up of the whole procedure in relation to appeals and that we shall fail to get the stability of the roll that is essential from the point of view of the confidence in the assessments and the assessors, and also the stability that local authorities will need in order to go forward when striking their budgets and knowing just exactly what the rate poundage is to be. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate rightly reminded us, the rate poundage depends upon the valuation as well as expenditure. Therefore, I appreciate that the amendment is drawn far too widely. It may be that there are one or two clauses which should be looked at particularly carefully to see whether they are working well and perhaps on the next stage of the Bill I will limit such an amendment to that. In the meantime, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the way he has handled the whole business tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of Enactments]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 24, line 15, leave out ("on oath").
The noble and learned Lord said: In another place the honourable member for Garscadden, Mr. Donald Dewar, suggested that we should look at the various powers that the Assessor of Public Undertakings has; in particular, the power to examine persons on oath. As a result of his invitation to reconsider the matter, we have concluded that in modern day circumstances it is not necessary for the Assessor of Public Undertakings to have the power to examine people on oath and accordingly have brought forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
10.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order, which was laid before your Lordships on 31st January of this year, be approved.
The first order which we have before us this evening seeks to amend various items of legislation and to revoke others with which the Department of Agricul-ture for Northern Ireland is concerned. The order also provides for a levy on the Northern Ireland seed potato industry, as well as for the making of schemes to aid consumers of liquid milk.
If your Lordships would care to glance at the amendments contained in the order, I think that you
1120
will agree with me that most of them are of a relatively minor nature. Indeed, we believe they are concerned mainly with correcting deficiencies in some enactments and clarifying ambiguities which have become apparent in the light of experience in the administration of this legislation. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in view of the hour this evening I might limit my comments to just the most important provisions only. Of course, if your Lordships have any questions I shall attempt to answer them briefly. If more detail is required, perhaps I might have to do so by correspondence.
If I might start by just glancing at Article 3, your Lordships will see that this will enable the department to levy the Northern Ireland seed potato industry and to allocate the money so collected for the benefit of persons engaged in the production or marketing of seed potatoes. It is particularly important that the work of promoting and developing the seed potato industry, which was previously carried on by the Northern Ireland Seed Potato Marketing Board, should be continued. Article 3 provides the means by which the funds for these functions can be collected from the industry. It also enables the department to prescribe a body to receive the levy income in order to carry out these functions. It is the Government's view that Seed Potato Promotions (NI) Ltd would be a suitable body to receive the levy income. The Northern Ireland Assembly, although in favour of the department being empowered to raise a levy, expressed some reservations about this. I assure your Lordships that there will be fullest consultation with all interests before we proceed to collect the levy and allocate the funds.
Article 4 provides a legislative base for making schemes to benefit consumers of liquid milk. The consumer subsidy ensures that consumers in Northern Ireland do not have to pay a higher retail price for their milk than consumers in England and Wales. For the producer this has meant a very welcome £5½ million of additional income in 1983–84, which is continuing at the same level in the current year. The original intention of Article 5 was to transfer the duty to license slaughtermen from district councils to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. However, following representations from the local authorities it was decided that the article should be amended to leave the licensing function with the district councils. The revised article amends the Slaughter of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1932 and makes it clear that local authorities should check the age and competence of the applicant before issuing a licence to slaughter or stun animals.
If we move on to Article 7, this extends the scope of the Agriculture (Temporary Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 so that schemes can be made to aid persons engaged in the production, processing, packing or marketing of agricultural produce. I would briefly add for your Lordships that at the moment the Act only provides for assistance to or for the direct benefit of farmers.
If we could turn the page and go on to Article 11, this amends the Agricultural Produce (Meat Regulation and Pig Industry) Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 to enable the department to recover the full costs of the meat inspection service, while enabling

1121
measures to be taken for a more efficient use of staff, and we hope this will reduce costs.
If I could take your Lordships on to Article 14, we see that this amends the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to permit trade during the close season in salmon, trout and pollen, and also in brown eels imported from fish farms outside Northern Ireland as well as trade in such produce from fish farms in Northern Ireland.
Article 16 amends the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 to bring Northern Ireland more closely into line with Great Britain and to enable the department to exercise greater control over the running of such things as pet shops, animal boarding, riding and zoological establishments, in the interests of the welfare of animals.
Article 17 makes a number of changes to the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This will allow for more effective control over animals imported into Northern Ireland and thus will aid disease control. Most of the changes reflect the animal health law in Great Britain.
I have briefly gone through the main provisions. If your Lordships have any questions on what I have raised, or indeed on any other articles that I have omitted in my little speech this evening, of course I will attempt to answer them and will attempt to do so tonight. But I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that brief glance through the order and, with that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st January be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the theme of this order is agriculture but it touches, according to my rough count, on about two dozen agricultural subjects. It is important for Northern Ireland because it is the largest single industry in the Province. That Province has its own crop of problems in this field. I am particularly pleased that this order has been discussed by the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly. The Assembly received written evidence, it heard oral evidence, and the report of the committee was accepted by the Assembly without amendment. So on behalf of these Benches let me say that we see here the Northern Ireland Assembly at work. This really is an excellent example of the Assembly at work and a justification for its existence.
The Minister has been very helpful in concentrating on the most important provisions covered by the order and describing the relevant background. If I may, I want to deal in particular with Article 3 because a substantial part of the evidence presented to the Agriculture Committee of the Assembly was concerned with just one aspect of Article 3. It appears to me that there is overwhelming agreement with the principle of compulsory levy to be applied for the benefit of the seed potato industry—subject, however, to one important reservation: that those who pay the levy should have effective representation on the governing body of the organisation which will disburse the funds. We on these Benches believe that that is a fair contention. There is force in that contention, and we support it.
1122
The Minister has indicated that unless something unexpected happens the prescribed organisation will be the Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) Company Limited. We understand that 50 per cent. of the directors of this company will be merchants nominated by the Northern Ireland Potato Marketing Board, the other 50 per cent. being nominated by the Ulster Farmers' Union. This is the snag. In the abstract, this formula may sound all right but it does not ensure that 50 per cent. of the directors will be seed potato producers. I understand that that is a matter of great concern to the Assembly, which has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to its concern.
If the Seed Potato Promotions Company is to be given the responsibility of dispersing the levy, should not the articles and memorandum of association of this company be amended to ensure that the seed potato producers have an effective voice on the governing body? I think it is right that we should raise that key question.
I will turn now to a non-contentious area. So far as I can see, no one appears to have dissented from Article 4, which introduces a scheme to make payments for the benefit of consumers of milk. I will have to read carefully what the Minister has said, but some of us are not quite sure who will benefit from the scheme. Having listened to the Minister, I am inclined to think that the consumer generally will benefit from the scheme, and obviously we would be content with that. But it could be argued, merely on the wording of the article, that the benefit would be confined to groups such as school children or the elderly. Again, we would be very grateful if the Minister could give us a rough indication of the value of the benefit to the individual consumer. I rather think the benefit will be to the individual consumer.
The Minister made no reference to Article 8; but from reading the evidence presented to the committee of the Assembly I understand there is certain concern about the imposition of payments for navigation on the Lower Bann. But I will not pursue that point.
I come now to my last question. This relates to one of the enactments to be repealed. A great deal of concern has been expressed in Northern Ireland about Section 20, or the vacuum that may be left if Section 20 is implemented. Both the Ulster Society for the Preservation of the Countryside and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland have voiced concern. I was born and bred in the countryside and I understand their concern. Both are of the opinion—and possibly "opinion" is too weak a word and the right word is "conviction"—that the Department of Agriculture should have power, a new power if I understand the position correctly, to control the felling of trees of high amenity value.
We have been referred by the evidence of one of those bodies to the corresponding provision vested in the Forestry Commission which operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. Both organisations claim that the mechanism of the tree preservation order does not meet the problems. We invariably hear in this House—and quite rightly—about the need to protect the quality of the environment. Therefore, I would be interested to know why the department's representatives should not come to the Houses of Parliament and

1123
ask for power to control the felling of trees of high amenity value.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could deal with those few points. I should have given the Minister notice of the fact that I was going to raise them, and I am sorry that I did not do so; it is due to my inexperience. I am sure that many people in Northern Ireland will be interested in the Minister's response. However, we on these Benches generally welcome the order: after all it is acceptable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are particularly grateful for the careful work and scrutiny which has been carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and for the welcome which he has given to this order. The noble Lord need have no fear that we were unable to follow the line of his questions, because he laid them out in an admirably clear and concise way. I hope that, with just a little debutante's luck, I shall be able to give the noble Lord clear and fairly satisfactory answers to the queries that he has raised this evening.
First, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his comments on the very valuable work that has been done by the Assembly. I am sure that his words will be echoed in Northern Ireland and that they will be read and will give great pleasure to members of the Assembly who work so hard. Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord's comments on the importance of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland will also find favour, because I am finding that the agricultural industry is particularly important to the entire life of Northern Ireland. I am very pleased that the noble Lord and I are on the same side so far as that is concerned.
The noble Lord asked me about the organisation concerned with seed potatoes, and why Seed Potato Promotions (Northern Ireland) would be an effective vehicle, and how the seed growers would be represented in that organisation. I stress to your Lordships that four of the eight directors of Seed Potato Promotions are already appointed by the Ulster Farmers' Union. The noble Lord will be aware that all producers can join the union; and so far as I am aware all the main producers are already members of that union. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that producers do and can influence the selection of the union-appointed directors through the normal democratic procedures of the union. For that reason we believe that our method is the best for the promotion of the seed potato industry in Northern Ireland.
On Article 4, concerning the milk consumers' subsidy, I am able to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships that the present level of the subsidy is 1½p per litre. The cost to the Government this year is approximately £5½ million. I would stress to the noble Lord that, strangely, the payment of the subsidy is made to the Milk Marketing Board, and, in turn, they pass it on in full to the liquid milk processors. It is in this way that all consumers benefit by not having to pay a higher retail price. We believe that that is the best method. It is easy, and, above all, it is cheap to administer.
1124
The noble Lord asked a particularly relevant question about Article 20, concerning the felling of trees. I would stress to the noble Lord and, indeed, to all those who have expressed an interest to him—and certainly there are one or two people in Northern Ireland who have expressed an interest—that the aspects of restricting felling on important and, indeed, justifiable grounds of landscape, conservation and, above all, amenity are fully covered by the Department of the Environment through the administration of its tree preservation orders. Therefore, there is no need for the Department of Agriculture to duplicate this particular function. I am able to assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that the Department of the Environment has been fully consulted on this measure, and certainly it has no objection to the repeal of this legislation.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davis. He raised some very important points. I should like to commend him for his very detailed study, and also for the concise way in which he put his questions. I hope I have been able to answer them.

Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
10.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before the House on 15th March, be approved. Your Lordships will see that this order creates a new structure of five levels of maximum fines for offences triable only summarily, and it provides for a general increase in maximum summary fines, which are presently less than £1,000. It also removes the limit of the fine available on indictment. The order also makes some related changes to other penalties and gives the Secretary of State power, by order, to vary maximum fines in the future in line with changes in the value of money.
This order is designed to bring the structure of fines in Northern Ireland generally into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The order is indeed technical and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall refer to what we regard as the main features.
Article 3 removes any existing limit on the fine that may be imposed where the offence is triable on indictment. Article 4 introduces what we call "the prescribed sum", which is defined as £1,000, as the maximum that may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence that may also be tried on indictment.
Article 5 introduces a standard scale of fines for purely summary offences consisting of five levels; namely, £25, £50, £200, £500 and £1,000. Article 5 also converts fines expressed in monetary terms to the appropriate level on what we call the standard scale. Daily and other periodic fines are, of course, excluded.
Article 6 contains the main feature of the order by providing for a general increase of fines below £1.000 for purely summary offences and in general increases them to the level on the standard scale next above the amount of the existing fine. As so often hapens, there

1125
are special cases and indeed exceptions, and these are referred to in Article 7, and also we find them in Schedules 2, 3 and 4. In brief, fines which are recently set are unaffected, while some are increased by more than the general level.
Article 8 is similar to Article 6 but it covers fines under subordinate legislation, while Articles 9 and 10 abolish enhanced penalties on subsequent conviction of purely summary offences. Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 make consequential amendments to certain fines and other sums in order to assimilate them into the new fines structure. I turn to Article 17. This gives power to the Secretary of State to alter maxima by order to reflect changes in the value of money. This will allow Northern Ireland fines to be increased later this year in line with the recent changes made in Great Britain.
Finally may I mention Schedule 1. This makes some changes to penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in line with those made earlier for Great Britain. This order before us this evening lays the basis for a more cohesive and rational structure of the level of fines in Northern Ireland similar to that applying to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for me to emphasise to your Lordships the importance of the fine as a penalty, and it is essential to ensure, as we hope this order does, that the maxima for individual offences are not so undermined by inflation that they are rendered any less effective. It is in this spirit that I would commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
11.3 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again the noble Lord the Minister has given a full explanation of the order before the House. It has again a single theme, fines, but it has required 19 paragraphs and 7 schedules to cover the ground. We agree with the Minister that the fine is an important penalty. It is imposed, I believe, on about half the offenders sentenced for indictable offences in the magistrates' courts and it is imposed on the great majority of those sentenced for summary offences. Therefore, as the noble Lord has said, the fine should not be undermined by inflation so that it becomes no more than a token payment.
The Minister has explained that the order increases the maximum penalty and introduces—I would not say creates—in Northern Ireland the principle of the five-level scale of fines already available in England, Wales, and Scotland, and indeed reproduces the very scales specified in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Again it abolishes the enhanced penalties. In other words, most of the major provisions of this order follow the corresponding clauses embodied in Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
This leads me to ask merely this question: why were these provisions not contained in a special Part of the 1982 Act? Why, in a sense, do we have to start afresh but without the opportunity to move amendments? Not that I necessarily have amendments to move. But perhaps I may ask the Minister this other question. When the order is implemented, will the fine structure applying in Northern Ireland correspond essentially to
1126
the fine structure in England and Wales, or will there still be substantial differences?
There is nothing else that I can add except, on behalf of our Benches, to welcome the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful for the noble Lord's reception of this brief order. He is correct that this order follows from many of the measures and many of the contents of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
Various changes have been made since the proposal was published and the noble Lord was wondering why there was a delay following the England and Wales Order 1982. The noble Lord, with his knowledge, would agree that the task of standardising fines was begun in 1977 with the Criminal Law Act 1977. Among other things that increased fines, which, as the noble Lord suggested and we agree, is an effective weapon—we hope that his point is taken—in criminal justice, but it increased fines for some offences at the lower end of the criminal scale in pre-1949 Acts.
It also introduced the £1,000 prescribed sum for offences tried summarily, but which were also triable on indictment. Consideration was given at that time during the preparation of the 1977 legislation to introducing similar provisions for Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that much preparatory work was completed, but it became apparent that further changes were being considered for Great Britain, so action to follow the 1977 Act as far as Northern Ireland was concerned was halted then.
The further changes for Great Britain appeared for the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 and we have started the work which we were doing up to 1977. We hope we have brought it up to date and we hope that we have been able to incorporate measures similar to the 1977 measures and all the measures which have been contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 in this order.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that there was some catching up to be carried out for Northern Ireland and that is one of the reasons why we have had some delay in bringing this order before your Lordships—it is not quite two years behind the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
I understand that the fine structure—if your Lordships and the other place accept the order, and it should be implemented—will correspond to the fine structure in England and Wales. There are some exceptions. I noticed that there was one exception over alkali. My little non-legal mind took me into this point concerning periodic fines, but that is a minor point and I understand that that is liable to be repealed and to fall in line later this year. I understand that the fine structure as a result of this order will bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales.
I hope that that has satisfied, in the major part, the queries which have been raised by the noble Lord. With that, I hope that he and your Lordships will forgive me if I beg to move.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.