Lords Sitting of 7 June 1985

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

Shop Hours
Lord Gallacher: 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 how many organisations which submitted evidence to the Shops Inquiry Committee suggested later closing times than 6 p.m. on Sundays and 9 p.m. on other days.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I regret that the precise information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but the Auld Committee commented in its report at paragraphs 228 to 235 on the evidence received on the extension of trading hours. Its conclusion, which the Government accept, is that no reform short of the abolition of restrictions would be practicable.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, perhaps I should declare an involvement in this matter, as I acted as one of the assessors to the Shops Inquiry Committee. Will the noble Lord the Minister accept that to the best of my recollection and belief none of the national organisations which submitted evidence to the committee suggested later closing times than those specified in the Question? In view of that fact and the further fact that in the taking of oral evidence later shopping times than those specified were not much examined by the inquiry committee, will the Minister suggest to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that before proceeding to total abolition there should be some consultation with national organisations representative of consumers, retailers, shop workers and local authorities to ascertain the practicality and desirability of what the Auld Committee finally recommended?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that the Auld Committee pointed out that from the evidence it received, the evening is regarded primarily as a time for routine food shopping. Some shops in some localities which stay open after 10 o'clock at night rely heavily upon their out-of-hours business for their survival. I think that the main point really is that deregulation will not require shops to stay open; they will do so only to meet demand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a matter which is of concern not only to the national organisations referred to by the noble Lord opposite but also to the whole public as consumers, and that in this era of working wives late opening of shops is of very great social value?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is such a complex subject, which we have debated in this House on several occasions, that it is not really in the interests of clarity to try to discuss it by means of question and answer?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister not admit that on this occasion the Government speak with a forked tongue? Is it not a fact that while they give a general welcome to the recommendations of the Auld Report for complete deregulation of hours and a potential 168-hour shopping week, they fail completely to say anything about the protection of the wages and conditions of shop workers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made quite clear recently in another place that he has agreed to look sympathetically at the best way of ensuring that established shop workers cannot be compelled to work on Sundays following legislation.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Government persist in wanting to change our Sunday they will be asking for trouble, and they have enough already?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware that the Auld Report looked at this point in very great detail. My right honourable friend has said that legislation will come forward in due course. I think that it is best to leave it until then.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that flexibility of hours could help some people who wish to find employment in that it might provide additional jobs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again, I think that my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, whatever the anomalies in the existing laws relating to Sunday opening, will the noble Lord bear in mind that there is a very large number of anomalies in all legislation? Will he also bear in mind that whatever may be the anomalies in this particular regard, they have at least secured a degree of serenity on Sunday and many of us would regret it if that were impinged upon?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am all for serenity on Sunday and I find it perfectly possible to have a serene Sunday and yet go to a shop.

Enterprise Zones and Jobs
11.8 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 how many new jobs have been created by the establishment of enterprise zones.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the consultants who monitored economic activity in the first 11 enterprise zones reported that over 8,000 jobs had been established in the zones by 31st May 1983; over half of these were in new firms. Between June and December 1983 a further 2,600 jobs had been located in the zones. We have recently completed the collation of more up-to-date information.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Does he not appreciate that the consultants said that in the first two years creating the jobs worked out at a cost to the public purse in excess of £16,000 per job? Does the Minister not understand that retailing and distributive outlets which operate inside an enterprise zone do so at an unfair advantage to those retailers and distributors outside who have to pay higher charges?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I am well aware of what the consultants had to say on this matter, but of course they were taking a very narrow view of the first two years of what is a 10-year scheme. Value judgments on these matters will only be satisfactorily arrived at at the end of the 10 years. As far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, we have no evidence that traders within zones have an unfair advantage over those outside, although we are aware of concern on the part of established retailers in shopping centres close to some zones. It is likely that the economy of the area as a whole will benefit by the rapid development of the enterprise zone.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that notwithstanding the miserable trend towards an increase in unemployment year by year, as well as an increase in bankruptcies, nevertheless there is this incredible situation where newspapers throughout the country, and local newspapers in particular, seem to have pages of jobs for which people may apply? Can the Minister say whether there is any collusion between job centres to inform people who might be interested? For example, under this Government a person might be unemployed in Ealing for three years and would not mind taking up a job in Wolverhampton to get out of the awful rut. Is that not a possibility, if it is riot already being done?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Lord is an avid reader of the Sun newspaper, as I am. Recently it has been having a campaign along the lines that the noble Lord suggests. I might also point out that in today's Sun newspaper there is an
942
article by my noble friend Lord Young, the Minister without Portfolio, which draws attention to this particular point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question. All he has said is that lots of other important people have asked this question as well and that they are getting no answer from us. Can we all have an answer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry. I did not mean to deflect the noble Lord's pertinent thoughts. The answer is that of course there is collusion within areas between the various job centres—for example, the one in Taunton and the one in Exeter, which I know well. Whether this goes wider in the country, for example, between Northampton and Taunton, is something that I shall have to look into. I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the development zone concept is one which is very important as one of the measures to try to restore the balance that has been upset by the shrinking of the heavy industrial base? Would he accept that, since it is a limited experiment, some of us are deeply concerned that in the first two years of a zone being established there is quite often very little progress at all? Would it be helpful to the House if a report were given to it which showed what progress in job creation has been made within the development zones in their initial years?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I think it might well be helpful to the House, but as I sought to say in an earlier answer I think that it would be a little previous to make that sort of report now. I think we should wait at least until half the period of the experiment is over.
Lord Parry: My Lords, may I come back and ask whether a 10-year period of generation does not require a very early start indeed in order to be certain that long-term jobs are created? Is it not precisely this reason that leads us to think we should now have a report on the general position of development zones?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not follow the argument. What I have sought to explain to the House is that each enterprise zone is a 10-year programme and the advantages to the firms in the enterprise zones last for 10 years. I have said that it is my view that it is too early to make the sort of assessment which the House very naturally wants us to make in due course.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what plans the Government have to make more enterprise zones in the North-east of England where the unemployment rate is the highest in Great Britain—much higher than Merseyside, higher than South Wales, higher than Scotland, and as much as 40 per cent. in some areas? In considering the North-east, will he take advice from his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who, in his former role as Minister for the North-east, made a bigger impact on unemployment there than anybody else before or since?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, running my eye quickly down the list that I have in my brief, I see that there are two enterprise zones in the North-east, namely, in Middlesbrough, and in Scunthorpe. The Government have at the moment no plans to extend the number of enterprise zones. These are of course looked at on application from the local authority concerned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that the figure of 16,000 per job given by my noble friend is substantially correct, and that these are genuine jobs which therefore are likely to last for some time, will the noble Lord draw his Minister's attention to the necessity for a very wide extension of Government creative intervention in these matters by greatly extending the job creation scheme? It seems, does it not, that the Treasury is going to make money? It will cost far less to create genuine jobs than the cost of unemployment itself.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this could well be true, and I shall of course draw the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends to the points that the House has made today. But as far as the £16,000 per job figure goes, I find it very difficult to actually identify how this is made up. The only cost that could be stated precisely in all this is the exemption from rates.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in his earlier reply he failed to see how there was an unfair advantage to the operator inside the zone by comparison with the operator outside the zone? Does the Minister not understand that if there is a cry that rates are too high and that the operator inside does not pay them, and the operator outside has to pay them, that is an unfair advantage?
Perhaps I may refer the Minister to his own consultants' report, which pointed out that the evidence so far indicates that the firms that operate inside the zones do not come from other parts of the country but come from nearby. In effect, they are simply shifting over the border into the zone to take what those outside consider to be a very unfair advantage.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's second supplementary is concerned, there will of course always be firms who want to move from existing locations for a variety of reasons: they need larger premises or a better location for distribution, and so on. Since enterprise zones are in the main located in areas where there has been serious economic decline, there is every advantage in having vigorous, established firms moving into such areas. There is also an advantage in retaining firms within a region when otherwise they might move right outside it.
As to the noble Lord's first supplementary, I would say it is inevitable that a larger workforce in a particular area leads to increased retail consumption everywhere in the area and not only in the enterprise zone.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that in answer to my noble friend Lord Glenamara he gave the names of two
944
enterprise zones, the first of which was Middlesbrough? Am I right in thinking that the second one he mentioned was Scunthorpe?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I hate to put the Minister right, but Scunthorpe of course is in Lincolnshire and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was in fact referring to the area he used to represent and with which he is so familiar, which has the worst unemployment record on the mainland. I believe that was the point my noble friend was making and I think we ought at least to get the facts right.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the deficiencies in my geography.

Foster-Children
11.22 a.m.
Lord Banks: 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 as a result of the operation of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985 a former foster-child, remaining in the home of his former foster-parents after coming out of care, can be compelled, if under the age of 26, to leave that home.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, although some young people in these circumstances could have their benefit reduced after a time. As part of our policy of monitoring the impact of the regulations, we are giving further thought to the position of young people in such circumstances.
Lord Banks: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I have not completely understood it and will therefore have to read what he has said in Hansard? May I ask him also whether he is aware that it is only two years since former foster-children remaining in their former foster-parents' home were assessed as boarders and not as non-householders so that they would not be put in the invidious position of having to be subsidised by their former foster-parents? Is the noble Earl aware that there is concern that these new regulations will negate that? Should not the former foster-children who remain with their former foster-parents be included in the list of exemptions under these regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the situation that happened two years ago. We are looking carefully at how the regulations are working in practice. If the noble Lord knows of any case which is causing distress, I should be grateful if he would let me know and I will take up the matter on his behalf.

Merchant Navy: Statistics
11.24 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the tonnage, the number of ships and the number of sea-going personnel in the British Merchant Navy in the years 1980 and 1985.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at the end of March 1985—the latest figures available—there were 758 ships with a total deadweight tonnage of 21 million tonnes in the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet of 500 gross tonnes and over. The corresponding figures for the end of March 1980 were 1,297 ships and 42 million deadweight tonnes. I am informed that the number of seamen on the General Council of British Shipping register at the end of March 1985 was 37,000 compared with 71,000 at the end of March 1980.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wonder what would have been the reaction of the media or of the Benches opposite if those figures had been admitted by a Labour Minister. Would the noble Lord not agree that the figures he has just given us reveal that this Government have allowed the mercantile marine—until recently the pride and strength of this country—to sink into a situation of almost total collapse? Is he aware that many members of the mercantile marine today are saying that if there is another Falklands-type crisis the mercantile marine, which played such a valiant part in the task force, would be totally inadequate to sustain another such task force?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first of all, I would not say that the situation is one of total collapse. The reasons for the decline are fairly straightforward: they concern changes in trading patterns. I think it is worth pointing out that 60 per cent. of the decline has been in the tanker fleet, and the reasons for that are fairly clear.
In terms of container ships, which contribute in a somewhat disproportionate way to some of the profits of the merchant marine, the figures have remained more or less the same. Regarding the need for ships for defence and the role that the fleet plays in support of defence forces and civil supply in times of emergency and war, that is recognised. It is subject to planning and review and, in addition, our fellow members of NATO have pledged to pool resources in the event of a war affecting the Alliance.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, is not the decline in the merchant fleet a matter for profound regret and concern to this country, once the greatest maritime nation in the world? Can he tell the House how many British-owned merchant ships are registered in Liberia?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a precise figure for the number of
946
merchant ships registered in Liberia. However, I can tell him that 5 million tonnes of United Kingdom-owned merchant ships are flagged out. What proportion of that is to Liberia, I could not say.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the decline of our merchant fleet is partly because of the increase in the merchant fleets of developing countries, which has been assisted by agreements such as the UNCTAD agreement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is indeed true. The increase in fleets of less developed countries, with their lower crewing costs, has been a contributory factor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord for again having been thrust into the position of answering for a department for which he has no personal responsibility, but does he not realise that his answers as to the reasons for this decline are totally inadequate? The decline has been very sudden over the last three years in particular. Has he been briefed on the statement made by the Minister responsible, Mr. David Mitchell, at the recent conference on money and ships in the City, when he said that the Government expect British owners to switch to flags of convenience at an even faster rate than before? Is not that an appalling Government policy towards what was once, as I say, our pride and strength?
Although I know the noble Lord cannot answer this question with authority this morning, may I ask him to draw to the attention of the department responsible the necessity for an investigation into this, either by Select Committee, Royal Commission or whatever it may be? Will the noble Lord write to me after consulting with his department on this proposal for an investigation into what is an appalling national disaster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first of all, I think I am responsible in your Lordships' House for answering for the Department of Transport, to which this Question is directed. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, quoted my honourable friend as saying that he expected more British ships to flag out. He speaks for the Government. Obviously that is not Government policy: it is his opinion of what may happen.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my second supplementary question? Will he write to me after consultation has taken place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords.

Insurance (Fees) Bill
11.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before us this morning is a short and uncomplicated measure. It extends to the field of

947
insurance the Government's policy that in cases where a service is provided or an activity carried out in connection with an identifiable group, that group should bear the costs involved.
Moreover, the Government propose to apply this approach to other institutions in what might broadly be described as the financial services sector. The July 1984 Green Paper on building societies proposes that the Registry of Friendly Societies should recover its full costs from those societies for whose supervision it is responsible: building societies, friendly societies, industrial and provident societies. I may add at this juncture that the recovery of the costs involved in insurance supervision by means of fees is normal practice in most other European countries as well as in the United States.
Perhaps I may now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. The central elements are all in Clause 1. This empowers the Secretary' of State to recover insurance supervisory and related costs from those who make the work necessary; that is, of course, the insurance companies and Lloyd's.
It has generally been accepted for many years that the insurance industry requires effective supervision. I do not think that I need detain your Lordships with an explanation of the details of the present British supervisory system, beyond perhaps noting that it should not be regarded purely as a constraint on the insurance industry. By maintaining confidence in the solvency of the industry, both at home and abroad, and providing protection for the policy-holding public, it helps to ensure public confidence in the industry. This, surely and quite clearly, is a benefit to insurers.
Clause 1 seeks to give effect to the policy by an amendment to the Insurance Companies Act 1982, requiring insurers to pay the Secretary of State such fees as he may prescribe. This includes the discretion to exempt certain categories of authorised insurers from paying any fee at all. In the case of insurance companies the fees are to be paid when they deposit the annual return, which is required by Section 22(1) of the 1982 Act. In the case of Lloyd's the fees are due when the council deposits its annual statement of business, which is required by Section 86(1) of the same Act.
The intention is that the system should come into operation from 1st April 1986. The level of fees is to be set by regulation, so as to ensure that, from that date, the total sum collected from the insurers in each 12-month period is, so far as possible, equal to the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising certain functions relating to insurance companies and to Lloyd's during that period. The functions which are to be charged for will also be prescribed in regulations. The monies collected will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
As your Lordships no doubt will see, this is an enabling Bill which leaves a great deal to subsequent regulations. This is because while the money framework of supervision is intended to be stable, changes necessarily take place within it and it is sensible to have flexibility in the implementation of
948
the scheme. The department is discussing with representatives of the industry how the powers which the Bill would give the Secretary of State should be exercised. Of course, the views expressed by the industry will be carefully considered by the department in drawing up future regulations.
Our present intention is that the functions to be specified would be those relating to what might broadly be described as the prudential supervision of insurers; that is, all the functions under Parts II and IV and some of the functions under Parts I and III of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. An annual insurance report is laid before Parliament every year and this gives an account of the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under the 1982 Act.
It is also intended that the department should recover costs incurred in respect of consultation and correspondence with authorised insurers concerning the exercise of the functions I have mentioned and the costs of work undertaken in relation to legislation and European Community directives concerning authorised insurers. One point which is obviously of particular interest to the industry is the size of the fee to be charged. This, of course, depends on which of the Secretary' of State's functions are prescribed.
A concern expressed by the industry has been that the present proposals might involve them in signing a form of blank cheque to the Government, in that they would have no control over the costs on which the fees would be based. Clearly, it would be wrong for me to say that there will be no changes in the way insurance is supervised, but as I have just indicated, we have no plans for altering the present framework, though, doubtless, there will be changes within it from time to time.
The increased burden on the industry which would follow from any change which led to an increase in supervisory costs and therefore fees would be a factor which the Government would have to bear in mind before agreeing to that change. Furthermore, any increase in the level of fees or alteration to the list of prescribed functions would be made by statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
We estimate that on the basis of our present thinking as to what functions should be prescribed, the annual sum to be recovered would come to around £2·5 million on current costs. The department's initial preference was to apportion this cost by means of a flat-rate fee, and the main reason for this is that such a system is administratively simple. This, of course, has the added advantage of keeping costs low. The department's experience also shows that there is no direct correlation between the size of a company and the supervisory workload which it generates.
The proposal for a flat-rate fee has led to some comment from the industry. In the course of debate in another place—your Lordships will recall that this Bill was introduced in another place in January of this year—the Government gave a commitment to take into account the financial position of the smallest insurance companies when drawing up the detailed proposals for the charging system. I am happy to repeat this undertaking. The industry has put forward proposals of its own concerning the apportionment of

949
fees, and my department will, of course, take these fully into account. I should say, however, that for the reasons I have given the Government continue to have a preference for a relatively simple fee system.
The Bill before your Lordships is a modest one. It will, nevertheless, bring some small relief to the taxpayer by reducing public expenditure without imposing excessive burdens upon the insurance industry. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
11.40 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are obliged to the noble Lord for having introduced the Bill in the way that he has. The noble Lord said that this is very largely an enabling Bill and that it will be followed by a whole series—we were not told how many—of regulations in amplification of its basic provisions. This House does not like legislation of this kind, particularly where the regulations by statutory instrument are subject to the negative procedure. It much prefers the affirmative procedure which, on questions of principle, gives rather greater opportunities both for notice of the items coming up and also for debating rather more widely.
In general, any measure which is brought by Her Majesty's Government and which reduces public expenditure is very welcome, and the noble Lord has said that he expects to get £2·5 million per annum by way of fees. All this is very good, and it is done, according to him, on the basis of the costs actually incurred. He mentioned also the costs of legislation, the costs of EEC representation and all the rest of it. Presumably, the costs of answering questions in this House would also come within the ambit. In general, I am a little distrustful of the Government's ability to carry out their operations on a cost-effective basis, and I sincerely hope that there will be some more effective checks as to the actual composition of the charge. I am quite sure that the noble Lord would not wish the charge to the insurance industry to be over-burdened by what some might call excessive overhead expenditure at ministry and Minister level and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some reassurance on that.
But having said that, and having welcomed the addition to the Government's revenues, I am bound to point out to the noble Lord that inevitably, if the insurance industry is going to incur increased costs, whatever saving the fees may be to the taxpayer, the insurance companies will undoubtedly put up their premiums and so the eventual cost may well fall upon those seeking insurance. That is a matter of which I assume the Government have already taken some account and, in general, I would not dissent from the decision that they have made.
With reference to the clauses of the Bill, I wish to deal not with the position of the ordinary insurance companies, but more particularly with the position of Lloyd's. The noble Lord will know that under subsection (3) of the proposed Section 94A the Council of Lloyd's will be required to pay the fee that
950
may be prescribed. On referring to the original Act of 1982 and dealing with the point that is relevant to Lloyd's, one finds that the fee has to be paid on the rendition of the documents, accounts and so on required by Section 86(1) of that Act. The question that I have to ask the noble Lord—and I trust t hat he will be able to give some reply—is: what happens if no statement under Section 86 of the Act of 1982 is made?
If the noble Lord will go carefully through the Act of 1982, he will find that although Part II, which deals with the position as it affects ordinary insurance companies other than Lloyd's, refers to a whole series of offences which can give rise to a prosecution, and in some cases to imprisonment for up to two years, plus a fine, in the case of Lloyd's there are no penalties under Section 71. No offence, at any rate, under the Act of 1982, is created in the event of a failure to comply with Section 86, dealing with the rendition of the accounts or—and this is possibly more apposite, in view of the recent history of certain sections of Lloyd's—with Section 83, which lays down the requirements to be complied with by Lloyd's underwriters.
We on this side of the House must take just as much responsibility as Her Majesty's Government for the fact that there is no offence clause in that part of the Act relating to Lloyd's. This is in conformity with the Government's general attitude towards Lloyd's—that it should be a self-regulatory body.
Since Clause 1 of the Bill, at subsection (3) of the proposed Section 94A, refers to the amount that Lloyd's are required to pay by way of fee by compliance with Section 86 of the original Act, the next question that I have to ask the noble Lord is whether his department has, in fact, received these statements on a regular basis from the Council of Lloyd's. If it has received them, perhaps within a different context your Lordships' House might be tempted to ask what action has been taken upon them.
I am well aware that in raising this question I am treading on somewhat delicate ground, for which the noble Lord may not be prepared, and I am most anxious not to put him in a position where he does not have adequate time to consider what I am about to say. But it would be of advantage if he had further consultations with his department and then, if he thinks fit—because I have no desire to raise this matter in a way that is embarrassing to the Government—perhaps he would care to write to me about it.
While I am mentioning Lloyd's I wish to refer to the apparent delays that have taken place in dealing with the offences that took place in certain sections of Lloyd's, and on which it seems to take an interminable time to arrive at a decision as to whether or not some prosecution should be brought. I shall not enlarge any further upon that, because it would not be proper for me to do so. The matter may or may not be sub judice. But I should be grateful for some information and the House would also be grateful, in due course, for such information as the noble Lord thinks it proper to acquaint the House with, because I am quite sure that many sections are a little worried, as indeed are wide sections of Lloyd's itself, as to why offenders—and

951
there have been some grievous offenders in connection with Lloyd's affairs—have not been brought to account.
Having said that, and having quite deliberately used this occasion, which is the only occasion when one is able to deal with these matters other than by question and answer at Question Time, in this way, I express the hope that the noble Lord may be prepared to deal with the matter on the lines that I have suggested and in a way that he considers proper. But in the meantime, so far as this Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House are pleased to support its Second Reading.
11.49 a.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his explanation of the contents of this Bill. It is a modest Bill and I want to speak very briefly about it. We have been told that a flat rate is to be levied on insurance companies for the purpose of recouping the cost of the supervision of the insurance industry and that the amount to be raised in this way is likely to be in the region of £2·5 million. It is rather like the pupils being asked to pay the headmaster's salary.
The Government's policy is said to be that, where a service is provided in respect of an identifiable group, the cost is recouped from that group. So far as I am aware, the application of that policy in this case has not caused alarm and despondency among the insurance companies, but I think there is some substance in the fear, to which the noble Lord the Minister referred, about a blank cheque. We are told that there are no plans for change, but we know that plans can be changed very quickly and suddenly. These things can happen so quickly that it is not always possible for those affected to rally themselves in time to prevent it. Of course in the long run it is the policy holder who pays for any burden that is placed on insurance companies, but then the policy holder is the real beneficiary of the supervision, so perhaps that is fair.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the flat-rate fee, and the Government say, as I understand it, that the size of a company however measured is not a reliable indicator of the supervisory work load. That may be true but I stir wonder whether it is entirely fair that insurance companies of vastly different sizes should pay the same, although the protection to which the noble Lord referred for the smallest insurance companies is to be welcomed.
In another place the question was raised as to how far the principle behind this Bill is to be taken. The question was asked as to how many other identifiable groups it will be applied to. It was even asked whether it might apply to the income tax payer who would be asked to recoup the Inland Revenue. But I suppose he does that already in a way, so perhaps that would not be necessary. Moreover, it would be wrong to invent a principle to justify a particular policy in a particular case, whatever the merits of that particular policy in that particular case. The noble Lord the Minister was able to point to other instances where the principle is being applied. I support the proposition that the Bill be read a second time.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their reception of this Bill. I have no great peroration to make in replying this morning. Perhaps the best I can do for your Lordships is to respond positively to the very few points that have been raised.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about enabling legislation and the way in which so much is left to regulation. I think that I ought perhaps to leave that comment exactly there with that understanding. I should say to the noble Lord, however, that we are envisaging only one set of regulations at the initial time and that the negative resolution procedure is already in the 1982 Act. When that measure was going through your Lordships' House perhaps he made the same comment then, and I would understand it.
The regulations will include such matters as Part I, Sections 11 to 13, the withdrawal of authorisation of an insurance company; Parts II and IV, which are concerned with the regulation through monitoring of their annual financial returns and use of intervention powers; the supervision of some industrial assurance business and the functions in relation to Lloyd's; functions in respect of prosecution of offences; work in connection with legislation and EC directives relating to authorised insurers—not, I hasten to add. Ministers' expenses or ministerial expenses—consultation and correspondence with authorised insurers and other supervisory authorities and other functions, whether statutory or not, which are exercised with a view to or for the purpose of considering the exercise of all the other functions.
We are, and have now been for many months, in discussion with the industry about these functions and no difficulties have so far arisen. The provision in Section 94A(3) for Lloyd's to pay a fee has been mentioned. It is consistent with general policy. The 1982 Act laid certain responsibilities on the Secretary of State in respect of Lloyd's. The long-term success of Lloyd's is in developing their own self-regulatory mechanisms. That is of great importance. It seemed right that the department should consider and at times comment on proposals which are under discussion there. We see this as part of the supervisory functions of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington asked: what if the Council of Lloyd's fail to deposit their statement? Commensurate with that, he asked: have they in fact done so? Yes, they have done so, and we do not think it conceivable that Lloyd's would fail to comply with their responsibilities in this matter. Certainly no offence would be committed but if in the very unlikely and almost inconceivable event that Lloyd's would not comply, an order could be made in the civil courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised, and gave an explanation as to why he raised, other matters concerning Lloyd's. I understand why he has used this opportunity, because another may not occur. While we acknowledge the concern that has been expressed this morning in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, and also within Lloyd's themselves, as a

953
result of the underwriting losses that have recently been publicized, I can confirm that a resolution of the issues that these matters have raised is in fact a Lloyd's internal matter. As the press have shown, the Council of Lloyd's have already been very active on this front. The Council of Lloyd's made fairly substantial progress within the framework of the Lloyd's market and that work is still continuing. I would not wish to be drawn on the question of prosecution. I think that your Lordships' House will appreciate why that is so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He implied in what he has just said that in the main this was a matter for Lloyd's themselves to resolve through their own disciplinary and financial procedures. Is he aware that the matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions? It is a question of when a decision will be made by the DPP as to what should be done.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, yes, indeed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for underlining that. I take note of what he says, but I do not think that he would expect me to prejudge any action or date of action by the DPP. Certainly he will be aware that my honourable friend the Minister for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, in the framework of the Financial Services Bill, has matters of this kind very much in the forefront of his mind. I should imagine that if there was any necessity, in the light of what has been going on in recent months, to revise the advice or the regulatory functions of Lloyd's an opportunity would then be taken.
The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Bruce of Donington, raised the question of the premium increase. I am sure that both noble Lords recognise that the premium income of all the insurance companies—and there were some 850 of them, including Lloyd's, registered this year—is fairly colossal: about £122 billion was the total investment of insurance companies, or their market value, at the end of 1983. The investment income at the same time was some £8·4 billion. If one looks at the figure of £2·5 million spread over some 850 companies, it works out at about £3,000 for each of them. I did say—and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, acknowledged this was some slight relief for the taxpayer—it is hardly conceivable that that charge of £3,000 will be likely to find its way into a premium increase. But it is of course an increase on the companies.
It would not be our wish to let the control of the costs get out of hand to an extent that would have such a marked effect on the premium that the policy holder—who is the beneficiary of the supervisory' nature of the work for which we are now seeking payment—would grumble. I have given that indication of the fees as we see the situation at the moment. Any change would have to be discussed with the insurers before any change was made in subsequent regulations.
I believe that I have answered the main points and questions which have been raised. I assure both noble Lords, of course, that if on reading the Official Report I discover that I neglected to reply to any pertinent point then I shall write to both noble Lords and, as is
954
the custom in your Lordships' House, I shall see that copies of those letters are placed in the Library. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agricultural Training Board Bill
12.2 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
This Bill seeks to extend the remit of the Agricultural Training Board, to enable it to provide certain of the services to the agricultural industries overseas which it currently provides only within Great Britain. I am sure that those noble Lords who are familiar with the agricultural industry will be aware of the standing and esteem in which the Agricultural Training Board is held within the farming community in Great Britain. Established in 1966 to provide training for the commercial agriculture and horticulture industries in Great Britain, the board has considerable expertise in its area, and particularly in the provision of short craft skills courses organised through groups of farmers brought together by the board and run by trained instructors from within the industry. Such courses are available to all workers and farmers, to widen their range of skills or bring them up to date with new methods.
The board's maintenance of high standards of training has justifiably earned it a reputation which extends beyond the confines of Great Britain, and sales of training aids and instructional material overseas, and visits to the board's training centre at Stoneleigh by agricultural delegations from overseas, have kindled a great deal of interest from those other countries. The board is, however, under its current legislation—the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982—only permitted to train people working in overseas agriculture if they are temporarily resident in Great Britain. In consequence, the board has, in the past, been forced to decline involvement in many overseas projects. Requests have also been made to the board to provide training packages to complement major export contracts to third world countries: for example, for irrigation works, or in the provision of agricultural plant or machinery. I am told that our failure to provide a quality training package in support of some of these projected contracts has made a material difference to our competitive position. Also, the long-term success or failure of a large agricultural project overseas will often depend on the way in which knowledge and skills can be imparted to local workers.
In this context, the training methods promoted by the board, of trained experienced workers using systematic training techniques within a group structure, encourages a rapport between trainers and trainees and has a ready place in ensuring that the necessary skills become established.
Looking at the Bill in detail, Clause 1(1) amends Section 5 of the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982, removing the constraint contained in the Act which permits the training of overseas persons only while they are temporarily in Great Britain. It is

955
intended that the board should be free to undertake functions detailed at Section 4(1) of the 1982 Act to provide courses, assistance in finding training facilities, and research and advice in connection with training for employment in agriculture overseas. Subsection (2) imposes on the board the requirement to act commercially in the exercise of its overseas functions so that at an early date it can show that expenditure on overseas work can be met from revenues raised. This is an important provision which seeks to avoid any diversion of funds from home training to subsidise the training of others, however well-deserved, outside the United Kingdom.
Subsection (3) obliges the board to maintain separate accounts and records and to prepare a separate annual statement of account in respect of its overseas functions. Again, this is to safeguard United Kingdom interests and to assure the farming community in the United Kingdom that money is not being diverted from its training needs into those of industries overseas.
Clause 2 formalises the obligation on the board as a public body to provide a right of access to its books and records. There has been for many years an agreement that such access would be given, but it has not hitherto been written into legislation and it would be prudent to include such a provision, to bring the board formally into line with current guidelines for non-departmental public bodies.
Clause 3 is a technical clause, to enable money to be made available by Parliament to the board so that it may initiate overseas training activities. It is however intended that this Bill will not give rise to any ultimate charge on public funds, as the extended functions provided by the Bill will be conducted on a self-financing and, hopefully, profit-making basis.
Clause 4 is largely a procedural clause, giving the Short Title, the commencement date and the important exclusion that this Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. Although the Agricultural Training Board operates in England, Scotland and Wales, other arrangements are made in Northern Ireland. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gallacher.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for putting this Bill before us, and congratulate him on the various points he has made, which are very relevant to the situation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I want to take this opportunity to make a point I have always wanted to make about agricultural training.
We all know of the necessity for agricultural training, but it has sometimes been said that agricultural workers of the old school did not have any skills and that such training was necessary to provide them with skills. Nothing is further from the truth. When I started farming back in the mid-1920s, the agricultural workers then had skills comparable to those of today's workers, and even more so. In those days, the work was all done by hand or by horse. One thinks of the skills of horsemanship, ploughing, harvesting, stacking, and even of sowing by hand. It was a tremendous skill to spread seed by hand evenly over a
956
ploughed field. Ridging, and more especially the splitting of ridges, is another great skill. I could go on to give more examples of old skills which agricultural workers used to have. I should hate to think that anyone imagines that the training board was brought into being in order to teach agricultural workers skills they already had. Today, all those old skills have gone, and we certainly need them.
Forgetting about those skills for a moment, perhaps I may tell a story about my youngest son. We were making hay, and the hay-turner broke down. Not altogether jokingly, I said "We had better get out the forks." He and the other man just looked at me in amazement as if they had never known that hay was turned with forks by hand—and not all that long ago. I can assure your Lordships that it is a very skilled job.
All these new techniques have been brought in lately almost as if there had been an industrial revolution in the past 20 or 30 years and the two decades since about the middle of the war. The necessity for training has become paramount because these changes have come about so quickly. I am glad that I was in the ministry in 1966, when the Agricultural Training Board was established, and can take some credit. Terrible mistakes and accidents were of course happening with the new machinery that was coming in so quickly. It is not going to stop, as new methods are appearing almost every day, and training must therefore go on.
To come to the Bill, it is more than necessary, as I think I can illustrate, that it should extend overseas. This is long overdue. I give your Lordships two instances of over 20 years ago when I was in Africa. I went to Basutoland—now Lesotho—with a party which I believe included the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who is not here today. I had a certain reputation for a knowledge of agricultural engineering and was asked to break away from the party to look at some difficulties they were having with harvesting in the south of the country. I was horrified to see a new Massey-Harris combine harvester, which was about eight or ten feet wide, that a co-operative had purchased. The co-operative had no idea of how to work it. Most of the fields were not much bigger than this Chamber. It had not been maintained at all. The rod that drove the blade was broken. When I examined the machine it was apparent that it had not seen grease for goodness knows how long. It was most pathetic that the machine was taken there, but the people had received no training whatever.
The other example was when at the same time I went to Botswana at the other side of the Kalahari Desert. We landed on an airstrip and on the way out I tripped over something entirely covered by grass. It turned out to be a set of irrigation pipes. Later I was taken to see the agriculture, which was in a very dry area, although there was quite a big river not far away. They were trying to establish lucerne, which is a deep rooting plant once it is established. However, it had repeatedly failed due to the drought. I told them that there was an irrigation plant lying on the airfield and the reply I received was that nobody knew how to work it. It was most extraordinary. The equipment had been brought out, presumably to irrigate the airfield which did not need irrigating, and there it was. I give those two instances to show how necessary it was then, and still is, to have some form of training. As the noble

957
Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out, it would be of assistance to our suppliers if good training is given with the sale of equipment. That is a very real point and the Bill will do that.
There is only one point I want to make on the Bill itself. I refer to the commercial aspect that has been emphasised; that it must pay. It must be difficult at times to evaluate how much a commercial company should pay if training gives it trade. That point will need to be looked at so that if a profit is to be made we get something from commercial firms if they benefit. With those few remarks, we give this Bill our very sincere blessing.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, my name is not down to speak, but all I want to say is that we on these Benches support the Bill and approve of its contents.
12.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for introducing this Bill. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord spoke in such enthusiastic terms of the work of the Agricultural Training Board. I agree very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the agricultural skills of former times. However, as the noble Lord very fairly added, today's agriculture and horticulture demands a high degree of technical skill and it is a fact that the chairman, board members, and staff of the Agricultural Training Board are today playing a major role in developing skills to meet that need.
The Agricultural Training Board was established in 1966 under the Industrial Training Act 1964, together with other specialist training boards in other industries, and was initially the responsibility of the Department of Employment. Logic, however, prevailed in 1975. I am not sure whether that was the time when the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was exercising his influence on the Ministry of Agriculture, but the board was transferred to the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and its powers have since then been consolidated in the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, the board provides a vital training role for the commercial agriculture and horticulture industries in Great Britain. It has achieved this in the main through the development of a network of more than 600 farmers' training groups. These groups identify training needs and organise short courses to meet skill shortages. It is an excellent example of self-help within the horticultural and agricultural industries. The strength of this group activity and the board's expertise in organising the groups is of particular interest to developing overseas countries. That is where the importance of this Bill comes in.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, explained, the 1982 Act does not enable the hoard to engage fully in overseas activities. The Bill will remove the restraint
958
on providing training for employment overseas and permit the board to provide training courses, teaching and advisory posts, as well as advice, and to charge for these services. I think that the experiences overseas of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pros e how important it is that this short Bill is being brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
I have just two other points. I was pleased, if I may say so, that the opportunity is being taken in the Bill to incorporate a further amendment to the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982 for the purpose of giving the Government a formal right of access to the board's books and records. Previously the subject of an informal annual agreement between Ministers and the board, this amendment simply formalises the arrangements in line with current guidelines for public bodies.
The other point is that the hoard continues to provide a high degree of service to its customers in the United Kingdom, but the Bill will now make it possible for the board to extend its activities to many areas of the world which could benefit greatly from our expertise. I believe that it is most important that the public and private sectors collaborate positively to promote the interests of our horticultural and agricultural industries abroad. It will be for the benefit of both the United Kingdom and many countries overseas which I believe will be pleased by the provisions of this Bill which will enable the board to operate overseas in a way which it is clear all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill are welcoming.
12.19 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie for his reminder that modern skills have their counterpart in former skills. Indeed, as I listened to him, and in particular his reference to journeys overseas, I was reminded of the turn-round of the famous Churchillian phrase: "Give us the job and we will finish the tools."
On the commercial aspect, I think that as a fellow Scot my noble friend will agree that a modest beginning in this direction is probably wise, and it is for this reason rather than any attempt to restrict the ultimate expansion of the experiment that the figure of 10,000 has been put in the Bill at this stage.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for further explanation of the work of the board and in particular for his plea that that gives an opportunity for cooperation as between the public and private sectors in taking advantage of the undoubted resources and skills of the board and in particular in promoting agricultural exports of machinery and plant overseas, given the fact that training may be possible as part and parcel of such a package.
I shall not detain the House further on this. I am assuming that as there is all-party support there is reasonable prospect that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. If that is so, it will justify the fact that for my part I got leave of absence from domestic chores in order to be here today to move it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Charter Trustees Bill
12.20 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This comparatively small measure passed through all its stages in another place without amendment or opposition, including a debate in Standing Committee where it received unanimous support and with the Government maintaining an apparently neutral stance throughout. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with a very small anomaly in the Local Government Act 1972. The charter trustees to whom the Bill refers are the creation of that Act and they were a form devised to enable those old cities and boroughs which are now simply part of district council areas to preserve their ancient rights, traditions and identity.
When the Local Government Act 1972 abolished the previous system in favour of the present two-tier arrangement, a number of cities and boroughs, some of them of great antiquity, with very old charters, lost their status. In some cases where they secured borough status under the new dispensation no problem arose. There was continuity in it. Where those ancient cities and towns secured the status of a parish council, again there was no problem because the functions of the old borough council devolved upon the parish council, the chairman of the parish council became the town mayor, and so on. Where in England they became parishes or in Wales communities there was no problem.
However, some cities and boroughs did not secure parish status and for them the 1972 Act provided the device of charter trustees, and there are now 24 bodies of charter trustees in the country. Each comprises the elected district councillors for the wards representing the old city or borough, and, if there are fewer than three, with one or two electors for the area appointed by the district council.
The functions of these charter trustees are not simply ceremonial or devised solely for the purpose of carrying on a historic tradition. Their functions include electing the city or town mayor and his deputy, the making of appointments to local offices of dignity (the high sheriff, or whatever), to hold on behalf of the citizens or burgesses of the town the historic and ceremonial property (not land or buildings), and in particular the charters, insignia and plate of the old city or borough, and to accept any further gifts of that nature that may come forward.
It may seem that that was a simple device which enabled the inhabitants of those old towns and cities to continue a popular tradition and that there was no real reason why that status should ever be changed. But in fact the 1972 Act, while setting up those bodies of charter trustees, also included a means by which they could disappear and be entirely abolished. Under Section 245 the Act permitted a district council to apply for borough status. Noble Lords may wonder why a district council in the depths of the country should want to call itself a borough, which it patently is not, for any better reason perhaps than that the chairman of the district council wants to be called a mayor. Nevertheless that has happened already in 18 cases, and 18 old cities and towns have had their
960
charter trustees abolished and have become faceless units in a large and extensive borough which has no historical foundations at all.
That is a very easy thing to happen. The district council has only to apply for a charter to become a borough and the Crown on the advice of the Privy Council invariably and automatically grants that. It follows that the charter trustees will be dissolved and their rights and privileges transferred to the new borough. That seems to many of us anomalous, since these districts had the opportunity to become boroughs 10 years ago, and it is hard to see why they should want to do so now if they did not then.
As I have said, for many charter trustees this Bill comes too late. Eighteen have already disappeared; there now remain 24, whom we seek to help. This Bill does not of course apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland where the local government system is quite different, nor does it attempt to deal with those where the charter trustees have already disappeared. There is no retrospective element in the Bill and we accept that some of them have been lost. Also, it in no way seeks to prevent the charter trustees disappearing if their area becomes a parish council, which would clearly be a highly desirable improvement in their status, and the chairman of the parish council would then become a town mayor.
If a district council becomes a borough and the charter trustees of an old city or town disappear, an old and valued tradition disappears—and something rather more important than that. However small the area may be, the function of a town mayor is something more than a formality. Apart from the few and generally popular ceremonial appearances that the town mayor makes, a good town mayor can perform an extraordinarily useful social function—one that the chairman of a large district council cannot perform in the same detail.
The town mayor is a popular and well-known figure. If he or she is doing the job properly during the course of his or her year of office, the town mayor will be visiting all the hospitals in the town, will be going to all the school speech days, will be helping to organise drives for funds for the local charities, and will be visiting old people's homes and keeping in touch with pensioners' organisations. Indeed, the town mayor does an extremely useful job. In our view, it would be extremely unfortunate if this office were to disappear.
Thus I hope very much that your Lordships will feel able to grant this Bill a Second Reading. It is of limited extent but of considerable interest and importance to quite a number of people. As your Lordships will see from the terms of the Bill, what it seeks really to do is to delete one section from the 1972 Act—that which provides for the charter trustees to disappear when the district achieves borough status—with a number of small amendments consequential upon that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon.)
12.31 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise wearing two hats. First, I represent the Front Bench of the Labour Party: but secondly, as is the convention

961
with private Bills, I speak in a personal capacity. Together with, I am absolutely certain, all my noble friends who are here as well as those who are not here today, I give a very warm welcome to this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, on having the good fortune to be invited to introduce this Bill by his colleague in another place, Charles Morrison. Charles Morrison is very well-known and respected in a wide range of matters, particularly those connected with local government. In another place he was able to bring the special distinction of the seat that he represents.
Although I have yet to see a list of the 24 charter trustees which remain, I very much hope that additional pleasure might have been given to the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, as representing one of those places which have a direct interest in this Bill. I cannot think of anything more splendid or satisfying for a noble Lord with a long experience of what one can call traditional, historical towns—an experience covering a great part of his life—than to have the good fortune to be able to do what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has been able to do here today. I believe he speaks not only on behalf of the people that he previously represented and still ably represents in this place, but also for many others when he talks in terms of taking the opportunity to stop the drift away from preserving our history, our traditions and our respect for the past.
In my view, no one is being a vandal; these things seem to happen. What has happened today is that an opportunity to stop that drift has been taken. As the noble Lord has said, it is perhaps too late for some. The puzzlement is that from 1972 to 1985 these things have not been done. Perhaps we are just in lime to save some of the traditions and take some of the opportunities that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, pointed out.
I speak with a local government background. I have no hesitation in saying that the office of mayor is important. Particularly in those places where the mayor is a lord mayor, that person in my view always was and always will be the first citizen of the town. The noble Lord has said that the mayor performs functions and that charter trustees perform functions that are more than a formality. They are trustees. They are trustees of the past, and they are trustees for the present and for the future. After a very full public life, at the end or near the end of good service to his or her community, I can think of no finer satisfaction to a public servant than to be honoured, first of all by his or her own party and secondly by the town, by being made the first citizen of the town for a year. As we know, some people are honoured in other ways.
The noble Lord mentioned that there is a pride in being a mayor. I would simply say this. I have been associated with Enfield and Edmonton for some time. Both are towns mentioned in the Domesday Book. they have a long history. They are intensely proud areas that want to maintain as much of that as they can. I would refer to four mayors who have held office since the new borough was formed about 20 years ago. The current two are John Reed, who serves now, and John Jackson, who gave up last year. The others are
962
Kit Harvey, the first mayor, and Charlie Wright, who was mayor about 20 years ago. They were from different parties, and were quite a different nix. As I said last week to a new mayor who said, "I believe you cannot beat the old one". I believe every mayor beats the old one because by the end of the year he is well known and respected.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Maude, will agree with me that as a Member of Parliament there is a fine satisfaction in being invited to give out prizes. However, the man or woman who is looked upon with more awe and with more respect than a Member of Parliament is the mayor of the borough. Not only does he look more important but he is more important than the Member of Parliament. That is because he has an honour which is given for service. It is not a political reward: it is a reward for the fact that he has maintained the traditions over the period.
I certainly think that the intention of the Bill is fine. The traditions which have been garnered together and which form part of our heritage are important. May I say that the history of Stratford is as precious to the people of Edmonton as the history of Salisbury, Devizes or any of the other older towns. Such towns are part of our history. However, it must be even more glorious for the people who live in those places to feel that in a busy, changing world, with the building of motorways and the demolition of traditional places, there will be something permanent; that is, the regalia, the prestige and the paraphernalia, which may be looked upon as pomp and circumstance hut which, if it is, I glory in as much as any other noble Lord.
We need to preserve as much as we can of what is fine from the past. As the noble Lord knows, we know of first citizens who have made names for themselves. At the end of the day they have been good servants of their town and party and of the people they represent. As far as I am concerned—and I believe I speak for all members of my party—we shall not impede this Bill. We are delighted to associate ourselves with it.
12.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me to speak in the gap, even though I was not sharp enough to put my name down on the list. I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Graham in welcoming this Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. He himself described it as a relatively modest Bill hut one of great importance to those directly concerned. He also said something that I want to follow up. He referred to the possibility that charter trustees might gain parish council status at some time, presumably through the parish review procedure. He described that as being a desirable change; an improvement in the status and an improvement in the democratic basis for charter trustees.
I rise only to seek his support in future if there should be another attempt such as the attempt that I made in this House in the last Session with my Urban Parishes Bill, which was an attempt to extend town status, parish status, to areas in our cities which are uniquely deprived of this opportunity. I was pleased to note that after my Urban Parishes Bill had been through this House it was Mr. Charles Morrison who

963
sponsored it for its First Reading in another place before it was overtaken by the end of the Session.
Much as I have respect for the ceremonial and other duties and powers of charter trustees, I believe that these should be founded on a democratic base and should be available to all of our citizens. After all, our cities and towns consist, as all of us who live in them know, of urban villages and of areas that may not be recognised in law but which can make meaningful parishes. Their citizens should have these rights and in particular these opportunities to maintain really local traditions and really local government. When I introduced the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the Government, was extremely scathing on Second Reading. I was glad to note, however, that as the arguments proceeded in the course of the passage of the Bill, he became considerably less antagonistic. I should like to express the hope that on a future occasion there could be more unanimity on the lines of the Bill that has now been so ably introduced by the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Maude for pursuing a matter which, as he said, arose in another place. Civic pride, which is what we are talking about today, is a concept that has been sadly missing from your Lordships' consideration of local government legislation in recent weeks. The question that your Lordships have to answer today is whether in this case it is misplaced civic pride. Following the speeches of the three noble Lords supporting the Bill, I should therefore point out that there is another point of view on this matter. The Bill is an extension of arrangements made under a Government amendment to what was then the Local Government Bill 1972, passed in your Lordships' House. That amendment allowed former boroughs which were merged into larger districts in 1974 to retain the former boroughs' Royal charters. These are held in trust by the councillors of the larger unit who are elected for the area of the former borough. The charter trustees, as they are called, may elect as leader a town mayor thus preserving the continuity of the mayoralty of these ancient towns.
It was anticipated in 1972 under Sections 245 and 246, to which my noble friend referred, that when the district obtained a borough charter from Her Majesty, the former charter would remain an archive, an historical document, and that there would be only one effective charter, one mayor, and so on. In other words, the charter trustees would have fulfilled their original rôle. Indeed, the 49 towns with charter trustees have now been reduced to 23. My noble friend rather surprised me when he referred to 24. I made a rapid calculation. I wonder whether he has not perhaps appreciated that Dunstable became a parish on 1st April this year.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the interaction between this and his desire to see more urban areas being designated as parishes. In fact, there is not quite the rapport between these two themes that he might imagine. Charter trustees can be dissolved for two reasons. Either the district becomes, by Royal charter, a borough and the district council chairman becomes the mayor, or, when a parish is created by
964
order of the Secretary of State, a new parish council takes on the charter trustees' representative rôle. Under this Bill, however, the charter trustees and the town mayor will continue with powers undiminished despite the effective discharge of their trust by grant of a borough charter to the district by Her Majesty. Furthermore, any rights and privileges granted to townspeople under the former charters will be restricted to the area of the former borough, thus preventing extension of those rights to the whole of the new borough.
When the district is granted a borough charter, the district council chairman becomes a mayor. But under the Bill, some new boroughs will now have both a mayor and a town mayor in the same council, and their inhabitants different rights and privileges, depending only on where, in the modern borough, they live. Your Lordships may not feel that this can be conducive to the unity of the modern borough.
The Government are strictly neutral in matters of this kind, and I, as their representative today, will therefore not stand in the way of the Bill progressing through your Lordships' House. However, for the reasons that I have given, neither am I in a position to give it any positive help. This is a matter entirely for your Lordships.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, in view of the ill-concealed hostility of my noble friend to the Bill, I should perhaps, with even greater fervour than I would otherwise have done, thank noble Lords opposite who have so generously supported the Bill. I cannot feel that the arguments that my noble friend has adduced really go the heart of the matter. Of course, we know that if a large district council secures borough status, the chairman of the district council becomes a mayor. While it may seem anomalous to have a town mayor in one small part of the district and a borough mayor presiding over the whole, the fact is that the chairman of a district council is a very remote figure to the ordinary people of a town within that district. He cannot, for geographical reasons as well as for reasons of time, get to know and be known by the people of the town in a way that the town mayor can.
Moreover, while my noble friend appears to think that the present situation in which charter trustees disappear, together with the town mayor, is conducive to good relations between the district and the ancient municipality, I can assure him that this is far from being the case. Indeed, the relations between district councils and town councils have required a great deal of mutual understanding and give and take during the past 11 years, but have now settled down, in my view, pretty comfortably. A modus vivendi has now been arrived at between the old cities and boroughs and the districts. But if there is one thing required to exacerbate and start again the old rivalries, it is the suppression at a stroke of the ancient rights, dignities and privileges of the old city and borough and the abolition of its charter trustees and its own mayor. It is surely better at the moment to let sleeping dogs lie rather than to stir up these antagonisms afresh. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful. Would the noble Lord not agree that the

965
period we are talking about—that is, the past 11 years—in the context of a thousand years of history is a terribly short time? It may well be that, in some years to come, the wish to cling to the history and traditions of the past will be less strong than it is now. If the Minister is pointing to anomalies and idiosyncracies, I have to say that local government is full of situations that do not sit squarely. What we are discussing—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, will agree—concerns a tiny fragment of the local government map which may not be efficient or justifiable on any other grounds than that it is traditional, that it is historical, that it is nice and that it is appreciated if only by a part of an enlarged local government unit.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, yes. I am grateful to the noble Lord: that is perfectly true. The attempt to get everything tidy, perfectly organised and computerised at the risk of exacerbating the feelings and traditions of numbers of people is a deplorable tendency. I see no reason why we should go along with it. I am grateful to my noble friend for at least saying that while he would not help me he would not put any obstacles in my way. In the light of that, I hope very much that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill
12.50 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
At the outset, I should first like to thank my noble friend the Chief Whip for giving time for this small but really quite important measure. As your Lordships will be aware, the Short Title indicates, as indeed the Long Title states, that this Bill is nothing other than a small amendation of the principal Act; namely, the Gaming Act 1968.
As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 1 simply provides that licensed bingo clubs may play a game of multiple bingo, which is referred to in the Bill. This is played quite simply by means of computer link-up between clubs in order to ensure that the total stake in the game is raised to the permitted maximum of some £50,000, which is referred to in Clause 2 of the Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, under the principal Act there is a restriction on the total prize money, which has now been increased to this maximum figure.
The immediate question of course is: why is this necessary? The answer can be seen very clearly when one looks at the background to the Bill. It is simply that the licensed bingo industry is in decline. Attendances are falling, clubs are closing and the trade associations—namely, the National Association of Licensed Bingo and Social Clubs and the British Bingo Association—wish to stem this decline. Noble Lords may ask why this is so important. The reason is very clear. As is suggested in the title of one of the trade associations—namely, the National Association of
966
Licensed Bingo and Social Clubs—bingo provides a very important social activity for a considerable section of society: in the main, women (the average age of whom is 52) who have a very limited opportunity for any other social activity. I believe that we should be very careful about sneering at this particular form of intellectual recreation, or re-creation, because various studies have shown that it provides—and Gilbert put it rather nicely—a source of "innocent merriment" to some 350,000 women throughout the country. I believe that your Lordships should welcome very strongly indeed anything that can be done to encourage this particular leisure activity.
I have taken the trouble to go to a bingo club and watch it in operation. I was astonished at the mental agility of some of these ladies who managed to supervise, if that is the right word, some six cards simultaneously, while at the same time discussing the merits or otherwise of their various spouses, whereas I had severe brain ache operating just one card; but that is beside the point.
I believe that the Bill handles this problem with simplicity and clarity. Clause 2 modifies the principal Act and defines the terms which have to be followed and which indeed make up a game of multiple bingo. Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to the management and conduct of games of multiple bingo. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 4 covers offences and enforcement. In actual fact it draws multiple bingo into the provisions of the principal Act. Clause 5 covers the Short Title and commencement.
Perhaps I may briefly say a few words on the commencement. Before they bring the Act into force the Government will be in very close touch with the Gaming Board on this matter and will ensure that the organisers of this particular form of bingo will get their act together in a manner which is entirely suitable. Some noble Lords may be concerned that if the prize money is upped, the penalties should be adjusted. By virtue of the principal Act the powers of the Gaming Board are positively draconian. If one peruses paragraph 2 of the schedule, one sees that the only test which the Gaming Board needs to apply in deciding whether to withdraw a licence is to decide whether the applicant is capable of or diligent in securing the provisons of the principal Act. It is nothing other than that and it is a very hard test indeed. The efficacy of this form of self-regulation is demonstrated by the fact that, if I recall correctly, no licence has been withdrawn in the industry since the passing of the 1968 Act.
This is a very modest little measure and I commend it to your Lordships. I want to stress that the vast majority—some 85 per cent.—of the people who play this game are women, and their average age is 52. It is not so much the gaming aspect that matters, but rather the social aspect. That was demonstrated in a survey which was carried out some time ago. It showed that many of the members of bingo clubs turn up a long time before the commencement of the game itself purely in order to socialise with fellow members of the club. It provides a form of companionship, relaxation and, indeed, opportunity for women to get out of the house. It is supported throughout the country by husbands who might, for instance, object to their

967
wives going dancing, going to pubs or indulging in any other occupation outside the house. This is a very useful measure and should enjoy the support of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Morris.)
12.58 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will recall that in introducing this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Morris noted with admiration the mental agility of various ladies who had six cards in front of them and operated them at the same time as discussing the relative merits of their spouses or members of their families. I should like to tell the noble Lord that the House has an equal admiration for his mental agility in the way in which he presented this Bill to your Lordships. It is a matter with which this House is familiar because the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, tried to introduce a similar measure. I want the noble Lord to know that I have carried out enough research to know that this is known as link bingo. With regard to link bingo, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, dealt with allowing the various clubs to join together on a regional or national basis in order that the monies could be pooled—the present limit I believe being £3,000 a week—although allowing the linking obviously made it impracticable for clubs to be able to attract on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was quite right in saying that anything that can achieve a useful and enjoyable leisure activity for our citizens ought to be encouraged. In debates that have taken place in this House on other matters we have all said that sufficient thought is not given to leisure activities, whether for the young or the not so young. If it be true, as one knows it is true, that many lonely ladies and a few lonely gentlemen too, find a great deal of harmless pleasure in playing bingo, one wants to assist the bingo industry, which I believe is having rather a bad time at the moment. The purpose of this Bill is to give the industry a better time and the people who play bingo a more enjoyable leisure activity. Therefore personally, because that is the way one treats Private Bills, I should like to say from this position that we support the measure and we are glad to see that in another place this measure was supported by the Government.
I should like to ask one question. I noted that in the other place the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Giles Shaw, who was dealing with the matter, said at col. 8 of Standing Committee C on 24th April:
"We wish to ensure that special arrangements will be made for clubs to take advantage of the Bill. We hope that the arrangements will be ready by the end of the year so that matters can proceed."
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether that is still the position and it is hoped that by the end of the year matters can proceed, because by that time all the suitable arrangements with the Gaming Board can be made. From these Benches, as I have said, but on a personal basis, we welcome the measure.
1.1 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris has explained why the bingo industry wants
968
this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has amplified what he said. It may be helpful if I confirm at the outset that we understand the difficulties facing bingo clubs and we support the modest measure of relaxation in the gaming law which the Bill achieves.
In saying that, I cannot do otherwise than refer, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did, to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whose Bill on the same subject found favour with your Lordships only two years ago. The interval has been used profitably to hold discussions between representatives of the bingo clubs, the Gaming Board and the Home Office, and the Bill is the result of those discussions. From them has emerged a method of allowing bingo clubs to play joint games for much larger prizes—up to £50,000—which at the same time does not ignore the fact that as a form of commercial gaming bingo could be subject to abuse. It is because the Bill balances relaxations in the Gaming Act 1968 with safeguards and a continuing role for the gaming board that we are able to support the Bill today.
The decline in the number of bingo clubs has provided the motivation for the Bill. A number of factors may explain the declining popularity of the game over the last 10 years or so. It is not obvious that the Government should intervene to help simply because of the declining popularity of one form of gaming, but we have been struck by two considerations. The first is that we can draw on the benefit of over 15 years of experience of bingo being played in accordance with the Gaming Act 1968 to assess which of the statutory restrictions really do need to be applied to bingo today. The Gaming Act 1968 was a response to the problems which had come about in the '60s when commercial gaming had found loopholes in the existing gaming law. The purpose of the 1968 Act was to purge commercial gaming of the criminal elements which had moved in, to keep the scale of activity within manageable limits, and to ensure that gaming was honestly conducted in decent surroundings.
Casinos, rightly, caught the brunt of this approach but bingo clubs themselves had not been free of problems and they too were made subject to a strict regime of control. Thus bingo is licensed and may take place only in accordance with detailed requirements. Members of the public may not play bingo, for example, on a whim striking them while passing by a bingo club. They must become members 24 hours beforehand.
The amount of money they can be asked to pay in admission and fees to participate in the games is subject to a ceiling and there are controls effectively preventing the bingo clubs from opening round the clock. The level of prizes is directly or indirectly controlled. It is right that against this background we should look critically at whether each and every restriction on bingo is essential in order to maintain the success of the 1968 legislation.
The idea of joint games of bingo which my noble friend has proposed—is not new. The principle is already recognised in the existing law in the provisions for what is termed—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to this—linked bingo. Nearly 300 clubs already take part in linked bingo as a means of boosting attendances. But prizes, as the noble Lord,

969
Lord Mishcon, rightly said, are limited to £3,000 in any week and the game must be played precisely simultaneously in all clubs. These controls mean that very few links comprise more than five clubs joining together. The purpose of the Bill is to allow bingo clubs to join together on a much larger scale, taking advantage of the possibilities of a computer link—on which I know my noble friend is particularly keen—and to allow prizes of up to £50,000.
Our second consideration has been the evidence that bingo clubs provide a useful and valued social and leisure facility for particular sections of the community. We recognise that many of the country's bingo players are of limited means and are potentially vulnerable. So while we are prepared to see concessions in the law which might help clubs stay open we would not allow this at the cost of seeing players encouraged to gamble excessively with little hope of winning. We want bingo to remain a relatively modest form of gambling without excessive stakes, and with clubs retaining their neighbourly and social character.
How does the Bill achieve this balance? It does so by defining multiple bingo as games played within a specified period rather than precisely at the same time. This means that clubs up and down the country can come together to play multiple bingo and pool the aggregate stake money in order to offer bigger and consequently more attractive prizes. But the Bill does not say, "Let the bingo clubs get on with it" from that point onwards. There are three types of safeguards built into the Bill.
First, the Bill itself sets down some of the parameters for multiple bingo. No prize may exceed £50,000 and promoters may not throw in their own money to boost the prizes. All the prize money will be stake money. It will not be possible to offer just one prize nationally—there will in addition have to be either regional or house prizes, or both. Nor will it be possible to stimulate custom by posting aggressive advertisements on the outside of club premises. The Bill prevents clubs from advertising the size of multiple bingo prizes in displays visible from the outside the clubs participating in the game.
Secondly, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations dealing with some of the more nuts and bolts questions about the game. If, after consulting with the Gaming Board, the Home Secretary judges that the maximum stake should be confined to a certain modest figure, that can be done.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Bill makes a key innovation in identifying the organiser as the person having the central management of games of multiple bingo and makes him responsible for the fair and proper conduct of such games. Under the powers set out in the schedule, the would-be organiser must subject himself to the scrutiny of the Gaming Board setting out the arrangements he will make for linking the bingo clubs together and obtain a certificate from the board. The board will not award such a certificate unless it is fully satisfied that taking account of his character, reputation and financial standing—and that of his fellow directors in the case of a company—and his arrangements for playing the game, an applicant is able and willing to comply with the law and ensure the fair and proper conduct of the game.
970
I am sure that the board will want to look closely not only at the steps taken to ensure the efficient organisation of the game but also the precautions taken to guard against the possibility of computer fraud. All this is backed by the powers of entry given by the Bill to Gaming Board inspectors in relation to all the premises used in multiple bingo. Once the game is underway, the Gaming Board will be able to revoke a certificate if it ceases to be satisfied that all is well with the games being played. These sanctions are in addition to those available under the Gaming Act or the Theft Act.
We hope that mutiple bingo will serve to give licensed bingo the boost it is looking for. But these controls should mean that it will achieve that success by remaining a game in which players part with a relatively modest sum in stakes and other charges. The Bill may help instead by making possible a reversal in the trend of declining attendance and the closure of clubs and not convert bingo halls into something more akin to casinos.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me a question about timing. Basically, the position that he described is still the case. We hope to have regulations in place by the end of the year. Implementation, of course, will depend upon the success of the talks between the Gaming Board and the would-be organisers, but so far as we can tell, all is on course.
I thought it useful to get on to the record some of the more salient safeguards that this Bill includes. Clearly, further homework will be needed in collaboration between the Home Office, the Gaming Board and representatives of the bingo clubs before the regulations which I have just described can be introduced. The Government are satisfied that the Bill provides a proper framework in which games of multiple bingo may be played and I commend it to your Lordships in the hands of my noble friend.
Lord Morris: My Lords. I am most grateful not only to my noble friend but to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for supporting this measure. It says a great deal for the intellectual agility and indeed elegance of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and of my noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, that in the course of a few moments in one afternoon they could handle both bingo and sexual offences. The support that the Government have given to this small measure indicates their understanding of the social importance of this, in a sense, very modest game. I welcome that most strongly.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sexual Offences Bill
1.13 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I warmly welcome the chance to place before your Lordships a Bill to which I attach a great deal of importance, and which I hope will commend itself to the House. It is a Bill which, in my view, deals in a plain and straightforward way with activities which must have appropriate sanctions under the criminal law if that law is properly to protect society and to reflect its concerns. It deals with

971
activities in which women are the victims and to that extent I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill myself—not from a particularly strident feminist platform, and not from a high-minded sense of moral outrage but, as I hope to explain to the House, because common sense and equity call for what I hope this Bill provides.
The Bill makes "kerb crawling" an offence and also creates an offence of persistently soliciting women for prostitution. I shall be asking your Lordships to remove a third offence—that of soliciting women for sexual purposes in a manner likely to cause fear—following undertakings given in another place. The Bill also increases two maximum penalties for serious sexual offences against women and girls.
Before I trace these proposals in a little more detail, I should like first to express my personal gratitude to the Criminal Law Revision Committee—chaired by Lord Justice Lawton—and to the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences—chaired by Sir George Waller—for their tremendously thoughtful, sensible and constructive proposals on how to deal with these problems which are the whole basis of this Bill. Their 15th Report, Sexual Offences published in April, and their 16th Report, Prostitution in the Street, published in August, contain among others, recommendations implemented by this Bill. It is clear that the new offences proposed deal with a widely perceived and experienced nuisance, and that the penalty increases will be thought fair and right; I wish to make it plain that it is to the Criminal Law Revision Committee that the principal credit is due for the merits of this Bill.
Perhaps I may now turn to the specific provisions. Clause 1 makes it an offence for a man in a street or public place to solicit a woman for prostitution either from a motor vehicle or having just left one. The House will not need me to emphasise that this is in a way the core of the Bill, in that it deals directly with "kerb crawling", the scale of which has in recent years brought enormous problems to various localities around the country, as Members of the other place representing those constituencies particularly afflicted know only too well.
What then is the problem? And what is the proper response? The line taken by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and which I share wholeheartedly, is not one of high-minded moral outrage, as I have said. I am not about to make pronouncements about vice or degradation, or to clamour for prostitution to be outlawed. That is one view of the prostitution business, and it is of course a respectable view, but it is not the basis of the controls we are considering today. Noble Lords will know that I have in my time shown interest and concern for the prostitutes themselves, and that I should not wish the law to penalise them further in any direct way.
But kerb crawling is a menace and, in some areas, an intolerable nuisance and residents can and should expect the law to address intolerable public nuisances. For many years, the prostitute plying her trade in the street has been controlled by law. The approach in this Bill is simply this: If the prostitute is penalised in respect of her activities in the street, on the ground that her activities amount to a nuisance from which
972
passers-by have a right to be protected, surely it is right also to penalise the client when his activities, too, amount to a nuisance affecting the women who live in an area and who pass through it. The "punters"—and I believe that that is the correct term—congest inner city streets; they offend women who are not prostitutes by mistaken approaches. The police in some areas have been valiant in their attempts to control these men, but they have at their disposal only archaic laws which do not specifically address the problem that they are urged to solve—a problem which I regret to say, is increasing.
There is evidence to suggest that not just individual women, but groups of residents in afflicted areas are sufficiently frightened or upset by the use of their streets, doorways and front gardens for sexual arrangements and services, to behave as if a virtual curfew had been imposed upon them; ordinary people will not go out or let their children, particularly teenage daughters, out after dark. Noble Lords may wish to expand on particular problems in particular areas, for I wish only to state the general principle. The clients of this business should not congest traffic and cause distress to residents by kerb crawling; the law controls the nuisance caused by plying a prostitute's trade in a street or public place; it should also control in the same way those who cause a nuisance in seeking their services, and that is what Clause 1 does.
The obvious question in relation to Clause 2, to which I now turn, is how and why it is distinct from Clause 1. Why are there two separate offences? This is where I am particularly glad to offer common sense as the rationale of this Bill; it cannot be claimed so confidently for all legislation. The Criminal Law Revision Committee were concerned at the obvious and pressing nuisance of kerb crawling—that is, in the main, the use of a car to trail prostitutes and pick them up. Clause 1 addresed that mischief. But there is no point in legislating in such a way as to simply push the clients out of their cars onto the street.
Clause 2 makes it an offence for a man in a street or public place persistently to solicit women for prostitution. The House will appreciate the importance of the element of persistence here and will know that the issue was carefully addressed—and I went to listen to the discussion there—in another place. Other committees have looked in the past at how such offences might be framed and have been unable to make firm recommendations. Clause 2, I believe, achieves the right effect, and I hope that noble Lords will agree. We are not dealing with the passer-by who asks a woman an innocent question. We are not dealing with a spontaneous, isolated, and sometimes welcome comment or invitation from a man to a woman in the street. We are not even dealing with a punter who makes a discreet arrangement with a prostitute. Clause 2, like Clause 1, concentrates on the public nuisance. Kerb crawlers are public nuisances and so are men who persistently approach women in the street for prostitution; and the first two provisions of the Bill seek to control these activities.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. Clause 2 already exists, I believe, in substance in the 1956 Act. What is the purpose of repeating it here?
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I shall leave the details to the Minister, but surely it is better to have the provision in an Act which will be used, I hope, and so it will not be necessary to look up another Act. I think it is much easier to have the provisions all in one Act.
I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing Clause 3. It addresses a related but distinct social evil—frightening sexual behaviour—but since it has been thought undesirable in another place, I shall, with some regret, I must admit, seek to delete the clause at a future stage of our consideration of this Bill. I remain of the view that frightening sexual behaviour by men towards women should receive serious attention from those of us who are able to influence the framing of the criminal law. But I also understand that in so far as Clause 3 is concerned, the offence may be directed well beyond the prostitute's client and it may well be better to proceed more cautiously—I think it is perhaps better in this case—in this delicate area in regard to what is acceptable behaviour between men and women and what is not. Accordingly, as I have said, this Bill will be simpler and shorter by one clause. I imagine that on that ground alone the change is likely to be welcomed.
Finally, the Bill effects increases in the penalties for two sexual offences. Clause 4 increases the maximum penalty for attempted rape from seven years' to life imprisonment and brings the penalty for indecent assault on a female into line with that for indecent assault on a male by increasing it to 10 years' maximum. Both these penalty increases are, I believe, sensible and logical. Maximum penalties for attempts at other non-sexual offences were brought into line with the penalties for the full offence by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Attempted rape was not brought into line, as the Criminal Law Revision Committee was reviewing that whole area. In the outcome the committee concluded that there was no reason for treating these matters any differently from others. Accordingly, attempted rape, which can be as vicious and emotionally damaging as the completed offence, will, under this Bill, be punishable by a maximum term of life imprisonment.
The case for an increase in the indecent assault penalty is even clearer. At present indecent assault on a male is punishable by a maximum of' 10 years' imprisonment, that on a girl under 13 by five years, and on a female of 13 years or over by two years. We can be talking, in the worst cases, about horrifying sexual abuse of children where the courts, in passing a maximum sentence, are at present constrained to making a sentencing distinction according to whether the child is a little boy or a little girl. This is unjust and dangerous—and not only in regard to children. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place mentioned a particular case in which a two-year sentence for an indecent assault on a woman was clearly insufficient to protect society. Subsequent events in the form of a horrifying sexual assault and murder bore this out, but the court at the time of sentencing for the indecent asault had no option above two years, despite, I believe, evidence before it that the offender was likely to be a continuing risk to the public for years to come. Maximum sentences are not of course the "tariff" for the ordinary case; they are to give the courts powers to deal adequately with the
974
worst possible cases, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this is what Clause 4 provides.
I hope that I have not delayed the House too long, but I wished to explain both what I see as the overall theme of this Bill, and its particular provisions. It falls into two natural divisions, dealing first with the "punters" in the street, who are a nuisance, and, secondly, with the maximum penalties for sexual offences. But it holds together as a measure providing for the more equitable treatment of men and women, whether as client and prostitute or as possible victims of an indecent assault, and as a measure implementing some of the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's carefully considered review of the whole of this area of the law. I believe that the Bill provides workable proposals to tackle real mischiefs. Woodrow Wilson said that
"the law that will work is merely the summing up in legislative form of the moral judgment that the community has already reached".
If that is right then I am confident that this Bill should work very well indeed, and I look forward with great interest to the response to its proposals which we shall hear later in the debate today.
I should like to thank the noble Lords—and in particular the noble and learned Lord—who have come today to take part in this debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Vickers.)
1.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches but purely in a personal capacity, since this is a Private Member's Bill, perhaps I may pay my respects first of all to the honourable Member for Plymouth, Miss Janet Fookes, who fought the battle for this Bill with some valour in another place and who has a worthy colleague, if I may say so, in the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who has just, with equal valour and clarity, moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. Let me make it perfectly clear from the very start that it would be a peculiar person who spoke in favour of kerb crawling and who did not want to abolish that nuisance from the streets of our urban areas, where it has become a very great nuisance indeed. It would also be a peculiar person who felt that in regard to the offences where the penalties have been increased, that was not a very sensible measure having regard, again, to the criminal activities that have taken place in this very lamentable area of our criminal law.
Having said that, I think your Lordships would understand very well, bearing in mind the responsibility that Parliament has, that one goes very warily before increasing the criminal law by the addition of a statute that makes a criminal offence what was not a criminal offence previously. It is our tradition in Parliament to walk very carefully along that road. My mind goes back to two relevant matters here, particularly in connection with Clause 1 of this Bill. My first recollection is of 30 years ago almost to the day, when I started to sit as a member of the Wolfenden Committee. Your Lordships may remember that that committee was asked to deal with the law relating to prostitution and homosexual offences. Very naturally, we regarded it as within our remit to look at this matter of kerb crawling. With your Lordships' leave, I am going to read the

975
paragraph of our report which dealt with kerb crawling, and which is so headed. I am quoting from paragraph 267:
"Our attention has been drawn to what we are informed is an increasingly prevalent form of solicitation by men of women, commonly described as 'kerb crawling'. The form this takes is that a motorist, driving slowly, and overtaking women pedestrians, halts by them with the intention of inviting them into his car. This is undoubtedly a serious nuisance to many well-behaved women, and it does not appear that, from the point of view of prosecuting those who are responsible for it, it fits conveniently into any existing category of offence except at the point where a specific invitation is addressed to an individual. To meet the problem it would be necessary to frame an offence the essential ingredient of which would be driving a motor-car for the purposes of immoral solicitation. Whilst we appreciate the reality of the problem, and we consider that it should be kept under review, the difficulties of proof would be considerable, and the possibility of a very daunting charge being levelled at an innocent motorist must also be borne in mind. We do not feel able to make any positive recommendation.".
That is the end of the quotation from the Wolfenden Report, and I can give personal evidence to your Lordships that we considered this matter with the utmost care and that this paragraph was drawn up after having duly studied and considered the whole matter of kerb crawling and how and if it should be made a criminal offence.
I said that I had two recollections, my Lords. The other recollection I have is of a debate in your Lordships' House in 1981 when, by a very considerable vote, Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act of 1824 was repealed. Indeed, it was described to your Lordships in many ways but I remember that the adjective most often used was "discredited". It was called the "discredited section 4". It was the decision of Parliament that that section which dealt with the offence commonly known as "sus"—the suspected person—was discredited because that charge could be brought on the evidence of a single police officer, and somebody could be brought before our criminal courts, and the whole thing was completely unsatisfactory, because there was no requirement for corroborative evidence of any kind.
Those two recollections are very much in my mind when I look at an offence which is now to be added to our criminal law if this Bill is passed in its present form, and which has as its constituent elements first the soliciting of the woman by the man; secondly, for the purposes of prostitution; and, thirdly, from a motor vehicle. Private prosecutions can be brought and dealt with in a summary court—it is a summary offence only—without any corroboration at all. In another place when this was being discussed, if I may paraphrase the Minister's reply, it was that, "One should not really be concerned with the necessary ingredient of corroboration because that is the sort of evidence the court will be looking at and it will be for the court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to convict."
I cannot help thinking that any one of your Lordships present in this Chamber may find himself, if we are not careful in the way we legislate, in the position of being an accused person in a magistrates' court for this offence. I think it will be little consolation to any one of us, to any member of our family or to any friend that the court decides there is not sufficient evidence to convict. Reputations can be killed in a moment by things of that kind. "No smoke without
976
fire" is an expression that is very often used, and public reputations can be shattered by a charge of this kind, publicised in the press perfectly properly and then possibly, weeks later, in a couple of lines in a local newspaper there appear the words: "The charge was dismissed".
I say that we have to be very careful, and I therefore regret that at the present moment this offence (which the noble Baroness correctly described as being the central point of this Bill) is there in its broad words, its clear words, and its frightening words, without the insertion of any requirement of persistence—although that is in Clause 2—and without any call for the necessity of confirmatory corroboratory evidence.
It is upon that basis that I expressed my personal fears before this Bill goes into a final form. I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but I would say to your Lordships that when this Bill—if your Lordships give it a Second Reading—goes through its further stages, we must be extremely careful when adding this further criminal offence to see that innocent people are not brought before our courts only to be discharged.
To give just a quick example to your Lordships—and I pass on speedily to my final point—can one imagine, if it is not a Member of your Lordships' House, a tourist driving his car in this country, as many of us do when we go abroad, and stopping at a kerbside and inquiring of a perfectly respectable lady: "Am I in Chelsea or am I in Bow?" No, my Lords, let me put it another way. The question is: "Am I in Chelsea?" I shall leave the question there. And the lady shakes her head and walks on. One can imagine a very vigorous, energetic, ambitous police officer—or it could be a member of some vigilante movement in the locality—saying, "Ah, I saw that! A car went slowly. It drew up by the kerb. The driver spoke to the woman. She looked to me to be a little indignant as she waggled her head and said, 'No'. I have no doubt of the reason why." That is again an example that we must have in mind when considering this legislation.
Perhaps I may say just a few words in conclusion. This has nothing to do with any criticism of the noble Baroness, for indeed I would prefer to praise her today and do it very sincerely rather than criticise anything she has done and said. But I regret—and this is a personal view which I put very humbly to the House—this continous programme of Private Member's Bills dealing with criminal matters, and important criminal matters.
This should be a Government responsibility, and the Government should not shelter behind a Member of whichever House it be and either support with fervour or not support with so much fervour or oppose the measure. We had this, as your Lordships will remember, on the very important legislation dealing with video films, and very important criminal offences were created by that Bill. From these Benches, I supported the Bill with all the fervour I could because I knew it was necessary. But it was so necessary that the Government should have brought that Bill forward. I say the same in regard to Bills which only carry out in part the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The Government ought to look at all those recommendations and see which are

977
fitting for the Government to incorporate in a Bill which then comes before Parliament in the proper way.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for the clear and lucid way in which she has introduced this Bill. I think few of us would argue but that there are a limited number of areas in this country where kerb crawling has become a pestilential nuisance. That there should be an attempt to use the criminal law to stop it is something I think very few of us would wish to argue about.
I have been concerned on many occasions—I hasten to say professionally—with cases in which one has sought to use the existing law to deal with this problem. May I say at once it usually arises under the insulting behaviour—breach of the peace provisions of the common law. The invariable pattern of evidence is that the woman solicited never comes into the witness box. If she is a prostitute, she does not come because she does not want to and because no doubt she has better things to do than spend her time at the police court. If she is a respectable woman, there are very few respectable ladies who would wish to come forward and say was mistaken for a prostitute". I have certainly never come across a case where the lady who was approached has gone into the witness box. In those circumstances, the evidence is invariably the evidence of the police officers.
It is against that background that one has to look at the offence that is now proposed to be created under Clause 1, and compare it with the one under Clause 2. Under Clause 2 a man commits an offence if he persistently solicits women; in other words, he has to do it on more than one occasion. Under Clause 1, he commits an offence having got out of a motor car, or from a motor car, if he does it to one woman. I confess I find it illogical. I find it difficult to see why, because the man has got out of a motor car, he should commit an offence with the first woman, whereas if he happens to have arrived on a bus he cannot commit the offence until he has approached more than one woman. I add this: it is the evidential matter which worries me on Clause 1. In effect, it is inviting the courts to convict where one police officer says, "I saw a man get out of his car and speak to a woman". There is the temptation for a police officer to gild the lily just a little, and to say, as one has heard police officers say so often in cases of this nature, "I did not hear what was said, but the woman looked annoyed". The temptations are such that they ought not, I think, to be put in the way of a police officer.
One method of dealing with this matter would be the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there ought to be a requirement for corroboration. I should like to consider that. I am not sure that I would not much prefer, as an alternative way of dealing with this matter, that the element of persistence which is set out in Clause 2 should be included in Clause 1, and it should therefore be made an offence for a person to solicit, provided he does it on more than one occasion, whether or not he has got out of a motor car.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I only interrupt the noble Lord to agree with him. It is indeed the suggestion that I myself made. I entirely agree with that.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am grateful. If that is so, and that does appear in due course to be acceptable to your Lordships' House, it will in fact be possible to combine Clauses 1 and 2 and simply have one clause dealing with persistent soliciting, whether from a motor vehicle or otherwise. It would, incidentally, have the very happy result of getting rid of what I think is the ugliest sentence I have even seen in an Act proposed in your Lordships' House, where, in lines 10 and 11, the sentence reads:
"in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that he has just got out of or off".
That is a sentence which I think we could well do without.
May I add this? Of course, if we then combine Clauses 1 and 2 and we make it an offence persistently to solicit, whether from a motor vehicle or otherwise, perhaps the point of the noble Marquess on the Cross-Benches does require an answer from the Government, because Section 32 of the 1956 Sexual Offences Act specifically makes it an offence for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes. Before we add to the statute book we would obviously want to know, with some clarity, just in what way we are, in fact, improving upon the existing law.
There is only one other observation that I would make at this stage. It might be said to be a Committee point, but I think it is a matter that ought to be raised at this stage so that the Home Office, in particular, can reflect upon it. It arises out of a letter which reached me this morning and, having gone through it with as much care as I can, it seems to me to be well founded. It is that Clause 4 of the Bill in subsection (3) increases the penalty for indecent assault from either two or five years in certain circumstances to 10 years. It is said in the Explanatory Memorandum—which I know is not part of the legislation—that that gives effect to recmmendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I think maybe that is not entirely accurate. I say that for this reason—and I do not expect an immediate answer to this—that offences of indecent assault vary enormously. There are offences of indecent assault carried out against a girl or woman without her consent. In that case of course they can be very serious. The Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that the maximum sentence should be increased to 10 years, and that is what the provision in this Bill does.
But there are other offences of indecent assault where in fact the girl is under the age of 16 and consents to the act of indecency. A normal piece of petting between teenagers, for example, still constitutes an indecent assault, because under the law a girl under the age of 16 is presumed to be incapable of giving her consent. The Criminal Law Revision Committee's report, which I looked at this morning, appears to indicate that in that sort of case, where a girl has in fact given her consent and there is a piece of comparatively innocent petting, or necking, going on between two teenagers, the existing penalties are more than adequate and ought not to be increased to the 10-year maximum which is apparently proposed now under this Bill. I raise that matter so that the Home Office, in particular, might have a chance to examine whether, inadvertently, they have not followed the

979
recommendations of the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to their logical conclusions. Subject to those observations, may I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we should give this Bill a Second Reading today but that we should take the Committee stage very seriously indeed.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for introducing this Bill in this House. I should also like to express the gratitude which we ought to express to the Criminal Law Revision Committee for its report. The chairman was Lord Justice Lawton, one of the most knowledgeable, experienced and chief exponents of the criminal law in our time. He was supported by Lord Justice Waller, who is almost equally experienced and has such good sense. It was a very strong committee.
Having paid that tribute to the committee, I should like to go back 30 years—to just about the time when I joined this House—as my noble friend Lord Mishcon did. My noble friend was on the Wolfenden Committee. I considered its report and took part in the discussions in this House. Many of us were in favour of making kerb crawling an offence then, because there is no reason for distinguishing between the sexes in this matter. If there were no clients, there would be no prostitutes. The man is just as guilty as the woman, and there should not be this distinction between the sexes in this matter. Prostitution is not a criminal offence, and neither is immorality. It is just the question of public nuisance which is a criminal offence. That must be stressed throughout, because the Act of 1959 was the Street Offences Act, and I am not sure that this ought not to be called the Street Offences Act of 1985, as that is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with public nuisances in our streets and public places.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee gave an illustration of this nuisance in its report and stated:
"What may have been a quiet street or square becomes frequented, often until the early hours of the morning, by prostitutes looking for clients and clients looking for prostitutes".
Squabbling may ensue, violence may ensue, and so on. It is that nuisance in public places which this Bill is aimed to prevent. The committee described what happened in an area in South London which was frequented by prostitutes and their clients. There were 345 residents questioned, and 222, or two-thirds, said that they had been accosted by kerb crawlers, once or occasionally, and in 73 cases it happened often. That is the nuisance which this Bill is designed to prevent.
It seems to me that we must remember this difference. It is not soliciting for immoral purposes. It is not sufficient that a man stops his car and invites a lady to go with him, perhaps on a sexual escapade. We are talking about soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, putting men and women together on that footing—and that has not been referred to at all.
I wondered what the words, "for the purposes of prostitution" meant. They are in Clause 5, which reads in subsection (1):
"References in this Act to a man soliciting a woman for the purpose of prostitution are references to his soliciting her for the purpose of obtaining her services as a prostitute".
980
So it is not just a question of soliciting any lady who is walking along a street. The man has to solicit her for the purpose of obtaining her services as a prostitute, paying her money for her services. Those words, "for the purpose of prostitution", are very important in seeing the scope of this Bill.
I now come to the question of the difficulty of proof, which the Wolfenden Committee mentioned. Has the Criminal Law Revision Committee surmounted that problem? I can well understand the anxiety of my noble friends about the question of proof. Ought there not to be corroboration and the like? Your Lordships must remember that a woman will hardly ever be prepared to give evidence herself. The ordinary respectable woman will not wish to go into the witness box and will not go there. In the old days, we used to have a policeman going into the witness box when a woman was charged with soliciting a man. If the policeman said that the man looked annoyed, that was sufficient proof. But all that has gone.
In this case the committee pointed out the sort of evidence that has to be available, and it stated:
"When keeping observation in an area frequented by prostitutes, police officers are likely to know who are, and who are not, prostitutes. When magistrates hear evidence that a man was seen driving slowly along a street and stopping and speaking to a known prostitute who then got into his motor car which he drove away, they should have no difficulty in inferring that he was soliciting for the purposes of prostitution".
The thought of the Criminal Law Revision Committee is that it is not the woman who has to prosecute; it is the police who are keeping overvation. The police will see whether a man is soliciting a known prostitute. What is he after? If the woman gets into the car and goes off with him, then he has achieved his purpose. The committee goes on to state that the man may be refused and may then go and accost another woman. That is sufficient. It seems to me that the committee is recommending that we should rely on proper police evidence of a nuisance being committed and of a man soliciting for the purpose of obtaining a woman's services as a prostitute. That seems to me to be what the Criminal Law Revision Committee is recommending.
I support the recommendation about the motor car, which appears as paragraph (a) of Clause 1(1). That is real kerb crawling. But the next paragraph is not about the motor car: it is about the person who jumps off a bus, who goes on foot and who then solicits a woman for the purpose of prostitution. There, one single act is not enough. The committee states that there ought at least to be persistence when it is on foot. That is what the paragraph is directed towards, and not towards soliciting from a motor car. So there are those two elements. I agree that it has to be properly proved. We must not have men brought before the courts wrongly. I think that the judges would say, "We will not hold it sufficient unless there is real evidence which is sometimes corroborated".
I am a little anxious about Clause 3, which refers to fear. In a way, one would like to have women protected if they are accosted in such a way as to be likely to cause fear. Clause 3 states:
"(1) A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman for sexual purposes in a manner likely to cause her fear".
She may not be able to give evidence herself; and is it not wrong that a man should solicit a woman for

981
sexual purposes so as to put her in fear? I am afraid that there is a good deal of opposition to Clause 3, but the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended the provision and I go a great deal by its recommendation, so well backed as it is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords. I hope the noble and learned Lord will realise that I would never interrupt a speech of his unless I thought I was helping him. He may not know that there was an undertaking that Clause 3 should not form part of the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, so announced.
Lord Denning: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord. Clause 3 has been dropped. Omitting Clause 3, I should have thought that the clauses to increase punishment are well to be desired.
I would end simply by saying this. I hope that your Lordships will do all you can to implement the good recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: the creation of new criminal offences is of the first importance in our society, and when a committee like this has made its recommendations it should be the Government who make their decision whether or not to create a new criminal offence. Although the Government have not done so in this case—the noble Baroness has done it—I would hope that the Government would at least endorse those main recommendations. I support the Second Reading.
2.1 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was hesitant about intervening in this debate, following as I do so many distinguished noble and learned Lords; but I felt that I ought to do so in view of the many suggestions that have been made to the effect that parts of the Bill, if implemented, would inevitably impinge upon the freedom of the individual.
This Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for whom I have always had the greatest respect, is undoubtedly well-meaning, unlike some recent pieces of legislation one could think of; but good intentions do not automatically guarantee that every part of a given Bill is either necessary or desirable. Just under two years ago, in the summer of 1983, I put down a Question for Written Answer asking how many new offences for which individuals could be fined or sent to prison or both had been created since 3rd May 1979, when the present Administration came to power, and how many offences had been repealed. The Answer was that a staggering 291 new offences had been created and that none had been repealed.
From these thought-provoking statistics one could deduce that by now, at a conservative estimate, at least 400 new offences have been created since May 1979. Set against this, all we have is a liberalisation, and a highly qualified liberalisation at that, of the laws governing the sale of spectacles and other optical appliances. I suppose it is just possible—if it is, it is sad to contemplate—that over the last few years the British people have become so intractable and unruly that the creation of all these new offences has been genuinely necessary. However, as far as this Bill is concerned, I
982
should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is to reply for the Government, whether it is true, as reported in a recent issue of the Spectator, that the Howard league for Penal Reform has reported a 20 per cent. drop in sexual offences over the last 10 years.
The increased penalties for existing offences covered in Clause 4 are one thing, but is it really necessary—here I echo the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon—to create a new offence of kerb crawling? Is it really true that existing laws, including common law, if properly enforced, are inadequate? Until my noble and learned friend Lord Denning spoke, I had been under the impression that Clause 3 had rather a lot to be said for it because it lacked ambiguity and the offences were fairly easy to pinpoint and define; but he has pointed out its defects. As the clause has now been dropped, any further discussion of it is academic.
Clauses 1 and 2 are more difficult. The honourable Member for Derbyshire, West, pointed out recently in The Times that the existing laws on soliciting allow women to solicit men unless the women are known prostitutes, and men to solicit men unless such soliciting is persistent. He might have gone on to say that, in addition, that group of women for whose benefit the ratepayers of Greater London, Camden, Islington and elsewhere are nowadays frequently called upon to stump up sums of money, are allowed if they so choose to solicit other women with impunity, whether intermittently or persistently. So we have anomalies.
To anomalies must be added imprecision and grey areas. How many paces from his parked car or motorcycle—presumably the vehicle which is the creation of Sir Clive Sinclair is excluded—must a solicitor (using that word in a strictly non-legal sense) advance before he can safely make a proposition to a woman? Is it 20 yards or 50 yards? I think that we (using the word "we" to define the public at large, it goes without saying) ought to be told!
More seriously, I think there is a genuine danger, all the more real in view of the absence of the right to trial by jury, of innocent men—here again I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—who have simply lost their way and stop to ask a woman for directions, being convicted. For this reason I cannot help feeling that the word "persistent", or better still perhaps the words "persistent or insulting", could with advantage be added to Clause 1(1), as suggested in another place by the honourable Member for Derbyshire, West.
I welcome unreservedly the substantial increase in penalty in Clause 4 for indecent assault upon a woman, thereby removing a ridiculous and quite inexcusable anomaly, although in parenthesis one might question whether the Private Member's Bill is the appropriate vehicle for imposing such a steep increase in penalty, however justified that increase may be. I have my doubts, however, about Clause 4(2), which provides for life imprisonment for attempted rape. It is probably true that a maximum of seven years' imprisonment is too low, but is not life imprisonment going too far in the other direction? No doubt it is best to leave consideration of that matter until Committee stage.
To sum up, while some clauses and subsections can be welcomed without reservation, one very much feels

983
that other clauses and subsections need the closest examination and scrutiny in Committee. It would be a pity to add to the 400-plus new offences created since 1979 if we can avoid doing so by more effective use of the law as it stands at present.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I am even more reluctant to intervene than was my noble friend Lord Monson, particularly as my name is not on the list of speakers. I should just like to say that I support practically everything that my noble friend has said, and to raise one other point.
There is something a little sexist about the way the Bill is worded. I refer to Clause 1(1), which states:
"It is an offence for a man to solicit a woman"—
and I need go no further than that. It is surely possible for a man to solicit a man for the same purpose. Surely this point should be taken into consideration in Committee at any rate.
2.9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate my noble friend Lady Vickers on introducing this Bill and on doing it so lucidly and with such feeling this afternoon. It comes to us unamended, as my noble friend has described, happily revived from an untimely death in another place. The area of sexual offences and prostitution is not an easy one to tackle—as listening to this debate has certainly taught me—but my noble friend has displayed a keen understanding of the problems which exist in this area and the delicacies surrounding them.
I should like, if I may, to pick up some of the points raised in today's debate and to look also at the particular issue of the element of persistence, which was extensively debated in another place and which has also concerned your Lordships this afternoon. But first I should like to say that the Government welcome this measure most warmly, and we pledge our full support to it.
I should also like to say at this point, in amplification of what was said in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was speaking, that we take the same view as my honourable friend in another place about the understanding he imparted that Clause 3 would not form part of the Bill. Like my noble friend, we do not reject in principle the Criminal Law Revision Committee's view that frightening sexual behaviour should be sanctioned by the criminal law. Personally, I consider that the arguments in favour of protecting women in this way are very telling indeed. But we must recognise that the principle aim of my noble friend's Bill is to control the plying of the prostitution business in the streets and to effect sensible penalty increases for more serious sexual offences. The Clause 3 offence goes wider, since it is by no means only the clients of prostitutes who might face charges under it. In that sense it may be removed quite neatly for further consideration elsewhere, without damage to this Bill's main objectives.
I remember that when my noble friend Lord Mansfield was piloting a Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House a few years ago he
984
described that particular Bill, like other Private Members' Bills, as "a tender plant". Despite the general welcome given to the Bill now before us, I believe that it, too, falls into that category. The clear and moderate objectives of its major clauses deserve enactment, and to that extent I think the plant needs nurturing and the small amount of pruning to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention will give it more chance of flourishing.
Perhaps this is a convenient point at which to add my personal thanks to those of others to the Criminal Law Revision Committee not only for the speed and efficiency with which they produced the sixteenth report, but for all their hard and constructive work since they started looking into questions concerning sexual offences some 10 years ago. As your Lordships will know, the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report on the remainder of the law relating to prostitution should be completed later this year, and we look forward to it with interest.
We all agree, I think, that kerb crawling is not the be-all and end-all of the prostitution business, but it is self-contained and therefore suitable for a modest measure such as this because it addresses only the nuisance caused by the "punter" in the street.
The fact that the Bill is a modest one does not devalue its importance or the gravity of the issues which may be related to kerb crawling. The alarm and distress experienced by young girls—perhaps coming from school, even—who are followed and propositioned by men in slow-moving cars really has to be tackled.
Indeed, I believe that the whole argument of "victimless crime" in this context is a hollow one. Of course, a client may proposition a prostitute from a car. A deal is made to which both parties consent and in that sense there is no victim. However, as I have said, other women trailed by punters in cars can be very distressed indeed. Residents whose areas are infested by the prostitution trade outside and around their homes are distressed; and finally, those women who never go to particular areas after dark for fear of being solicited as prostitutes are, in a real sense, victims of the scale of the nuisance.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister forgive me for intervening only so that we have clarification? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was, I think—he will correct me if I am wrong—taking it for granted that the only evidence that would be required, and indeed the only time a charge would be brought under this clause, would be if a policeman were to say, "That woman who was approached by that man in that motor car was a prostitute and I knew her as such." Is the Minister saying that the ambit of this clause goes far wider than that and that it includes perfectly respectable women who are approached from a car? If that is so, my example is a pertinent one. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is right and it always has to be a prostitute known as such to the officer then the example I gave is wrong; but the Minister would also be wrong.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I am trying to do in the last few paragraphs of my speech is describe the

985
nature of the nuisance, which is a point I believe was highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that this was a nuisance. On the example of whether or not a policeman could believe someone to be guilty only if the woman was a known prostitute, I think I shall cover that point later when winding up on some of the points that were made. What I will now say is that it is in some places a very real nuisance and that is why it was thought prudent to bring forward this legislation in line with the Criminal Law Revision Committee's recommendations.
I have dwelt on the point because I thought it might he helpful to tackle at an early stage what appears at first sight to be a criticism of substance. Similarly, it is right to explain now our position on the element of persistence which is in the Clause 2 offence and not in Clause 1. It is a distinction to which my noble friend has already drawn attention and which occupied the main consideration of the Bill in another place. The question is: is it more morally reprehensible to solicit a prostitute from a car than otherwise, and does the "one-off" solicitation offence not risk unfair prosecutions? In our view, the answer is, no. As we have said, the standpoint on the Bill is not one of moral outrage. The car makes no difference to the morality in question, but nor does the Bill, as drafted, risk unfair prosecutions under Clause 1. I shall expand a little more on these points.
The overwhelming nuisance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stressed of which the Criminal Law Revision Committee had evidence in making its recommendations was that of kerb crawling: that is—loosely described—the use of a car to cruise around looking for a prostitute to pick up. Hundreds of men do it and it has led to an intolerable nuisance in certain areas and to fear and distress among other women. The Bill seeks to stop the mischief by making kerb crawling illegal. Naturally, the use of cars, in itself, could not constitute the offence. Therefore, in order to eliminate precisely that risk to the innocent motorist, which some fear, the offence should lie in the clear act of solicitation of a prostitute linked in some way to the use of a car. The Clause 2 offence to which the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, did the Minister say "solicitation of a prostitute", or did he, in fact, not mean solicitation of a woman? There is a big difference.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I said "solicitation of a prostitute". If I should have said something else I am sure that I will be able to correct it in a moment. However, I think I am right in saying that I should have said "solicitation of a prostitute".
The Clause 2 offence is, as it were, a back-up to make it clear that those clients cannot simply take to the streets without risk of prosecution when their soliciting becomes a nuisance. The noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, earlier in the debate asked my noble friend Lady Vickers why it is necessary to have Clause 2 if the case is already met by the 1956 Act. The case of Crook v. Edmondson is authority to the effect that the offence under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 is confined to men who persistently solicit
986
other men for sexual purposes. Clause 2 penalises men who solicit women. If the noble Marquess looks at page 30 of the 16th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee he will see at paragraph 3.32, which I could read out but which I am sure he has with him, an expansion of what I have just said. It quotes the Crook v. Edmondson 1966 case.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I do not have it with me but I shall look it up later on. However, I looked at the 1956 Act, and I do not remember seeing any reference to men there at all—or am I missing the point?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Marquess would like to listen to this it may make him more aware of the situation. I shall quote the paragraph:
"Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which derives from Section 1(1)(b) of the Vagrancy Act 1898, makes it an offence 'for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes'. The interpretation of this provision has caused difficulty. It is commonly believed that the original purpose of the provision was to penalise the prostitute's pimp who touted for clients, but it has recently been contended that 'possibly the sole, and certainly the main, aim of the provision was to deal with soliciting of females'. Nevertheless, it appears that the provision, quite soon, was used mainly against homosexual soliciting, and in Crook v. Edmondson [1966] 2 Q.B. 81 the Divisional Court held that it does not apply to the man who accosts women for sexual intercourse".
The Marquess of Tweeddale: So we are talking about men in public lavatories essentially, my Lords. I take it that that is how it has been interpreted.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a little difficult for me to intervene when we are both on our feet together. That is why I hesitate. Whether it applies particularly to public lavatories I am not entirely clear. What I am trying to explain is that, because the provision was being used in a way in which perhaps it was not originally intended, the 1966 case indicated that it was following a different pattern from that which was intended earlier. That is why it is necessary to have a fall-back position in Clause 2 of the Bill.
I think I had better clear up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised. Clause 1 applies whether or not the woman solicited is a prostitute. Where she is a prostitute, Clause 1 will in practice have to work on police evidence. Where she is not a prostitute there may be cases where she would be willing to come forward to give evidence against the man, but even here police evidence may well be required because not all respectable women will be willing to come forward to give evidence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I only want to emphasise that, as the Government understand the position and as they are advised, it is an offence under Clause 1 of the Bill, whatever be the definition of the words "for the purpose of prostitution", if somebody driving a car by the kerbside approaches a woman whom he thinks is a prostitute but in fact is not: or if somebody approaches a prostitute and she is a prostitute; or, indeed, if somebody approaches a woman not knowing whether she is a prostitute but hoping that he can turn her into one. All those offences, presumably, as the Minister is saying, are

987
covered by Clause 1. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will appreciate, that is not quite what the Criminal Law Revision Committee had in mind.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes; I note the noble Lord's interpretation. That is as it stands and follows the explanation which I gave.
Perhaps I may make one further point of clarification for the noble Marquess. Section 32 of the 1956 Act, which he particularly asked about, is confined to men soliciting men. I hope that makes the answer plain for him.
I should like to revert to what I was trying to explain before I digressed on to the particular point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale. At present, discreet contact between client and prostitute involving no trailing by car has not, from the evidence that the CLRC took, reached the proportions of a nuisance per se. For that reason, among others, it has been thought right to invoke the criminal law only when the man makes a nuisance of himself by persistent soliciting.
I think we all agree that the critical distinction between the clauses is whether or not there is an element of persistence. There can be no question of simply adding an element of persistence to Clause 1 (as, for example, the Law Society suggested) because that would render Clause 1 otiose. One would simply rely on Clause 2 to deal with persistent soliciting in a car or out of it. Frankly, our view, and that of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, is that this will not deal with kerb crawling, and if that is right we should be knowingly rendering the Bill ineffective from the start, in relation to the principal nuisance at which it is aimed, if only the persistent kerb crawler were to be caught by this measure.
If Clause 1 was missing, there would be no clear and explicit offence of kerb crawling—which we believe in itself will deter much of this activity. No person could be charged with an offence where a girl might have been much frightened by a kerb crawler and was prepared so to testify. Punters would cruise more slowly and for a longer time around those areas already suffering so much from this plague, in order to ensure that the first girl they solicit is obliging, and all in all those who have looked to us for a sensible and pragmatic remedy would be utterly disappointed. All this would be in the face of advice from a committee who have taken evidence on the subject for many years and who were fully alive to the issue of persistence in either clause.
At this point I should like to return to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised in amplification. It is an important point to have right. I am not legally trained and I get into a tangle with it myself. However, the point that I made to the noble Lord about Clause 1 was that it applied whether or not the woman solicited was a prostitute. I said that where she is a prostitute, Clause 1 will in practice have to work on police evidence and that where she is not a prostitute there may be cases where she would be willing to come forward herself to give evidence against the man.
I should like to study the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put upon what I had said, in amplifying what he had said earlier to the noble and
988
learned Lord, Lord Denning. I think I may find that he did not interpret it quite in the way that I had hoped he might. Clause 1 is exactly what the Criminal Law Revision Committee had in mind. It is to cover soliciting for prostitution of any woman, whether or not a prostitute. If the noble Lord refers to page 18, recommendation 6 of their 16th report, he may find that helpful. However, I shoud like to study the noble Lord's remarks. I may have to clear this matter up by way of correspondence if I have put a wrong interpretation on what he said. That particular page and recommendation is, I believe, the pertinent one to study.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. This is the last time that I shall intervene. I shall not argue the point further. However, I believe that it would be a matter of grave concern to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to hear the observations that have been made. His speech, as I understood it, was directed to a different interpretation to that given by the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Glenarthur: In that case, my Lords, it is best, I think, that we move on and that I should take up the matter perhaps in another forum to make sure that we are all on the same lines. I believe that the interpretation that I placed upon it is correct. If it is wrong and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is correct, we can sort it out in due course.
I apologise to your Lordships for explaining the detail at quite the length that has been necessary. I do so partly in an honourable attempt to meet concern expressed by one or two Members in another place that the issue should be fully ventilated in your Lordships' House, and partly—although I am not sure that this will necessarily be totally possible—to avoid arguments at a later stage of the bill which start from misunderstandings. It is important to take every step to remove misunderstandings before we start.
Clause 1 creates the principal offence of kerb crawling and forbids it. Clause 2 backs up that in relation to what I call the persistent pedestrian punter. In both cases, the innocent are protected by the clarity of the offence as one of solicitation for the purpose of prostitution. If the prosecution cannot prove that, there is no case and, particularly with the advent of the new independent crime prosecution service, we can be confident that few problems will arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the point about Clause 4 of the Bill and the increase in penalties. The point that he makes has been considered by the Home Office. I can give him a quotation from a letter which reveals just that. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is content that the Bill accords with the spirit of its recommendation in the 15th report. The letter was addressed to a Mr. Reekie in Brussels. The paragraph that I shall read states:
"You may be interested to know that the point you raise",
on this particular issue,
"has already been considered by the Committee. They are unanimously of the opinion that the worst cases of indecent assault on a female should be punishable with 10 years' imprisonment and they have given their unanimous approval to Clause 4(3) of the Bill. This in no way prejudices their recommendation that acts which are offences only by virtue of Section 14(2) or 15(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 should be treated under a separate heading in any general legislation to reform the law on sexual offences".

989
I hope that that answers the query of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as to whether or not this point has been taken account of.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that observation, which answers the point that I raised. It still means, although it is of no great consequence, that the original comment in the Explanatory Memorandum is not entirely accurate. However, if the Criminal Law Revision Committee has subsequently reviewed the matter and indicated as it has to the Home Office, that meets the point that I raised.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, raised a point about what he considered to be the sexist nature of the Bill. The Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view that the law already deals adequately with men who solicit men under Section 32, which we considered earlier. That is the reason for the scope of Clauses 1 and 2 being confined to men who solicit women. Therefore, I do not think that the charge that it is sexist stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised a question on the Howard League's Report on Unlawful Sex. In addition, he referred to the matter of new offences; he quoted 291 as having been given in an answer that had come forward over recent years. He said that none had been repealed. On the particular point about the Howard League, we have looked at this report with interest. I do not wish to quarrel with their interpretation—and it is their interpretation—of the criminal statistics. Other people could come to different interpretations. Even if we are fortunate in that sexual offences are not increasing, this cannot inhibit us from giving the courts adequate powers to deal with the worst cases where they occur.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Government certainly endorse the general principle that attempts at criminal offences should be punished in the worst cases by the same maxima as the substantive offence—and that is already enacted in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981—and that sexual offences are no different from others in this. But we awaited the CLRC's conclusions before producing proposals for legislation. The fact is that here we are dealing with a very real menace. Many people think so, and that is why if something is not caught by the law in any other way, there is a very good case, on advice—and we have the advice in the form of the committee's report—for dealing with it.
I have already spoken for quite long enough and have amplified a number of points. Finally, what of the Government's plans for a full-scale reform of sexual offences and offences relating to prostitution, a point in which I believe your Lordships will be interested? We are studying with great interest and care the CLRC's major report on sexual offences, and we look forward to the completion of their review of offences relating to prostitution. Naturally our commitment to legislation will depend upon the conclusions we reach. There is no doubt, however, that this area of the law must be sensible and comprehensive, and that the courts must have adequate powers to
990
deal with sexual abuse or exploitation. With those principles in mind we shall look at recommendations for reform of the law against competing priorities, as any sensible Government must, and as I believe your Lordships' House would want us to do.
I am conscious of the fact that, in the interests of time, I have not dealt with risk to innocent men and with corroboration. I know that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, raised these points particularly and, if your Lordships will bear with me for just two minutes, I should like to go into them and explain them as shortly as I can.
So far as the first is concerned, the element', of the offence will have to be met. That is, a man will have to solicit a woman for the purpose of prostitution in order to give grounds for a charge. As I understand it, a passing remark, a friendly chat or question will not of itself ordinarily suffice. As regards the need for corroboration, under our laws the reliable evidence of a single witness, whether or not a police officer, can be sufficient for a conviction if the court finds it conclusive. We have, however, undertaken to pass on to police forces, for this offence as for others, our clear position against the use of entrapment techniques. The Metropolitan Police have indicated that they do not plan to use women police constables to enforce laws controlling prostitution. In addition, we have undertaken to monitor the working of the Act with particular attention to the acquittal rates. I shall study the noble Lord's points. It may be necessary for me to write to him.
This limited Bill seeks to constrain in one narrow area those who have become a considerable scourge to the innocent bystander. It is in the hands of an extremely wise and respected member of your Lordships' House. In her piloting of the Bill she has the Government's full support, and I wish her well with it.
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should just like to say thank you very much to all noble Lords. With all these learned people present, surely we should be able to get this Bill through on time. I am very grateful to them for giving up their time.
Since 1959 I have taken an interest in this question of prostitution and at that time fought against the Government of the day in order to get some changes in the Act. I hope that somewhere the word "offending", which was taken out of that Act. will be included in the Bill. The police had to ask the woman whether she was offended. Regrettably, that was taken out. I do not know whether we can get it put in the Bill again. It would be useful.
I should also like to pay a tribute to Miss Janet Fookes the honourable Member for Plymouth Drake. She was chairman of the Select Committee to which I took a number of prostitutes, and we gave evidence there some time ago. I have, shall I say, tried to help both sides. They held meetings in my flat. At one time I had some of them stay with me in the country so that we could get down to basic principles. This is not against prostitutes. There would be no prostitutes on the streets if it were not for men, and so I think they have my sympathy.

991
I should like to thank the Minister for his helpful answers. I have contacted the Whips' Office. If, as I hope, we get a Second Reading, perhaps we can have discussions in the dinner hour. I do not want to keep noble Lords late night after night and so for the moment I have booked the dinner hour. I hope that this will be convenient to noble Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may rise before the noble Baroness sits down. I am not competent to speak on behalf of the usual channels, and I doubt whether the usual channels are available further to inform us this afternoon. However, having regard to the important and quite lengthy debate which has taken place on this Friday afternoon, raising many points which must be looked at carefully in Committee—I express merely a personal point of view and I should like to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on this—it might not be most appropriate to deal with this Bill in the dinner hour. Having said that, I must not discuss the matter further.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am pleased to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I shall see the usual channels about this. If your Lordships are so keen to speak on this Bill perhaps you will give me your views later if you would not like this arrangement, and I can tell the usual channels when we should like to consider the Bill. I wish to thank everybody who has come along today. I hope that we shall have a successful Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before three o'clock.