Lords Sitting of 24 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Willoughby de Broke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Duke of Manchester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
Lord Aldenham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne—Took the Oath.

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken by the European Commission on the issue of liberalising air transport within the Community since the United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, The Commission announced on 10th July that it had decided to send letters to member states' airlines requiring them under Article 89 of the treaty, to bring to an end various concerted practices which the Commission see as infringements of the treaty. We welcome their initiative as a significant increase in the pressure for reform, and particularly as an incentive to the council to agree on a package of liberal measures for aviation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if it is correct that the Commission has written to 10 airlines including British Airways and British Caledonian, can the Minister give the House the names of the other airlines concerned? Further, can the Minister say whether it is true that a time limit of two months has been given for replies, and to whom the replies should be sent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that there is a time limit of two months for replies to the letter, and those replies have to be sent to the Commission. The other airlines to whom the Commission has written on this particular point are Sabena, SAS, Lufthansa, Olympic Airways, Air France, Aer Lingus, Alitalia and KLM.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if, as I understand it, the Commission has powers of its own to deal with these matters, does that mean that it will
376
act on the replies independently of the Council of Ministers and thus avoid further delay? Can the noble Earl give the House the date of the next meeting of the Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, the Commission can act independently of the Council of Ministers on this matter. I cannot tell the House when the Commission next meets, but I can say that the Council of Ministers will be meeting formally on 10th and 11th November. It is hoped that my right honourable friend will be able to arrange an informal meeting in London in October.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say what the position will be if they do not reply to the letters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will be for the Commission to take what action it deems necessary through its powers under the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Government can also act independently by taking powers under Article 88 to enforce the treaty, in spite of the fact that many member governments of the Community are flagrantly breaking the law? Can my noble friend indicate when the Government are likely to take these powers and what the effect will be in bringing down the cost of European air travel?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly points out we can take matters into our own hands, but we believe that a better solution will be found, for the long-term good, by negotiation between all members of the Community rather than by individual states taking action. However, if we do not achieve a satisfactory solution by the end of our term of presidency, which will be the end of December, we will look at the matter again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of the member states concerned, other than the United Kingdom, are very heavily—and I mean heavily—represented within the Commission itself? It is by no means certain, on the basis of the information that we have been given this afternoon, that there will be any collegiate directive issued by the Commission in view of the divisions of interest to which I refer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Commission is firmly of the opinion that there should be further liberalisation of the air transport market and it will pursue all means at its disposal to that end.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware of the very real feeling that because 1992 has been fixed as the year for the removal of all internal barriers within the Community there is a danger that the obstructing states may try to delay action until nearer that date? Can the noble Earl tell the House whether the British Government remain committed to their intention of achieving a first stage in these negotiations during the term of our presidency?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we remain committed to seeking an agreement with our partners in Europe, which is why my right honourable friend is seeking to have an informal council meeting before the formal Council meeting, where we hope substantial progress will be made.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that saying the Government will attempt to seek agreement falls short of using the powers mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bethell and what we could do? Is my noble friend in a position to say that if there are no replies, or if the replies are unhelpful, we will use the powers referred to?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we will be entitled to consider every option available to us if progress has not been made by the end of our presidency.

Food from Britain Campaign: Support
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 level of support has so far been committed by the agricul-ture and food industries to Food from Britain.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am pleased to say that with the positive outcome of the poll of cereal growers, the agriculture and food industries have committed £2·5 million to Food from Britain in 1986–87 and a similar amount in 1987–88. The actual level of expenditure will depend upon the work programmes developed jointly by Food from Britain and the various sectors.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Are Her Majesty's Government committed to any financial provision in future for the Food from Britain campaign?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords, we certainly are; £14 million is due to be spent by the end of the next financial year, 1987–88. We have promised that from then onwards for a three-year period we will put in Government money on the basis of £1 for every £2 of industry money, provided industry puts in a minimum of £3 million in any one year. The Government maximum would be £2·5 million in any one year.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether those bodies which engage in generic advertising, much of which is financed by commodity levies, are going to integrate their advertising programmes with Food from Britain, possibly on a co-funding basis? Is the noble Lord satisfied that liaison between these parties and Food from Britain is in all respects adequate?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that there will be an integration of those involved in generic advertising, but I know that they will be considering contributions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should declare an interest as I am a member of the council on the executive board of Food from Britain. May I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the ability of the individualistic factions of the industry not to make a total commitment to Food from Britain has been both irresponsible and debilitating? Does he also agree that it would be quite wrong if the council were to become a farmer-funded/farmer-managed organisation, and will he ensure that it does not happen?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the intention of the Agriculture Bill with which your Lordships have just parted company is to increase the size of the council on which my noble friend sits so that there is representation not only of the farmers' unions but of the food manufacturers, the milk, meat and cereal sectors, and the retailers. Obviously it is our hope that money will come in from those different sectors. Perhaps I may just say that if industry plays its part, at the end of the first eight years of the Food from Britain campaign the Government will have contributed £21½ million.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the success of raising money for Food from Britain, will the Minister reconsider the method of financing the advisory service and perhaps put it on a levy basis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an exceedingly interesting but other question.

Boeing 747 Aircraft Inspection
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 Boeing 747 aircraft on the British register have now been examined for cracks in the frame in the forward sections; in how many of these cases cracks have been found; what was the average age of the aircraft in which cracks were found; and whether any and if so how many of these aircraft remain to be checked.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority have informed us that since the initial inspections of localised areas of the nose fuselage structure were completed in March this year, three Boeing 747 aircraft on the British register have now been more extensively inspected in the continuing programme for aircraft which have accumulated over 8,000 flights. Cracks have been found in all three aircraft. But the nature and severity is less than previously found, being well within the structural capability of the aircraft. Each aircraft has completed over 13,000 flights, 18 aircraft remain to be inspected and each inspection will take 2 to 3 weeks to complete.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting and helpful reply. Can he say whether, in the light of these cracks, both the airlines and the government agencies concerned are reviewing the expected working life of these aircraft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the cracks are well within the structural capability of the aircraft and this is something for the aircraft operators themselves to determine. It depends on the pressure cycles—that is, the number of times the aircraft has to take off and land—and therefore the cracks will vary. Obviously there will come a time when, because of the continuing maintenance programme, it will be cheaper to renew the aircraft than to maintain it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the question that has just been put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is very important? Are the Government, the department and the CAA satisfied with the present procedure in regard to the programme of inspection of airplanes generally? Or does the noble Lord consider that there should be some review given to the regular inspections? These cracks have come to light as a result of a number of recent incidents, and if they had not come to light we might have had very severe difficulties.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the incidents that I have reported today have come to light as a result of a continuing programme of vetting of aircraft which is done on a regular and increasing basis. The cracks are very minor and well within the structural capability of the aircraft, and, I believe that the Government and the CAA who are responsible for this matter are taking it seriously.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with only three inspections completed and 18 still to be carried out, progress seems to be rather slow? Is there any prospect of speeding it up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the aircraft have to come back to this country in order to be inspected for British Airways; but this is a second series of inspections. The aircraft have been inspected once—before the end of March—and the inspection that is being carried out this time is a continuing, on-going and slightly more extensive one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does that reply mean that the cracks that are found now were not apparent when the aircraft were looked at previously, and is it safe to travel in aircraft with cracks?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am advised that it is safer to travel in aircraft with cracks of this nature than in aircraft with no cracks at all, as this probably means that there will be greater stress elsewhere.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is that not rather a cracked answer?

Community Radio Scheme
3.14 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have decided to abandon the community radio scheme after nine months of preparation, and whether they will compensate the 266 applicants for the time and effort expended and costs incurred.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it proved impossible within the present statutory framework to devise satisfactory arrangements for supervising the experiment which both provided safeguards for the public and at the same time did not involve the Government in controlling the content of broadcasts. We concluded that it would be better to reconsider community radio as part of radio policy generally in the Green Paper to be published this autumn. As to compensation, applicants were asked not to incur the expense of elaborate applications; but we shall want to reflect on the views expressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the Home Office must have been fully aware of all the possible snags long before groups were invited to submit applications last autumn? Is he aware that many if not most of the applications were supported by individuals and organisations of the highest integrity and respectability, including the police, local clergymen of various denominations, hospitals, charitable organisations, and so on? Finally, does he further agree that none of the thousands of individuals who comprise the groups which made applications would have gone to the trouble of expending so much time, energy and money if they had imagined for one moment that their applications would automatically be consigned to the dustbin?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, every effort was made to resolve the difficulties of mounting a sensible and continuing experiment within the present legal framework, but we concluded that it would not be right to keep applicants hanging on any longer—hence the announcement made by my right honourable friend. Certainly we recognised that many applicants had worked hard on their applications and we regret the disappointment caused by our decision not to proceed. The applications have shown that there is enthusiastic and constructive support for community radio, and we very much hope that it will prove possible to devise suitable arrangements for its development in the future.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that that Answer in regard to compensation for the applicants is really not good enough? Is he further aware that many of these applicants are people of very limited means and organisations with very limited funds? Having misled them into doing all this work, or even having decided quite honourably not to continue with community

381
radio, are the Government not really responsible for the costs that these people have needlessly incurred?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall not accept from the noble Lord that the Government have misled anybody. As I said in my original Answer, the guidance notes issued to all applicants made it clear that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did not want people to incur the expense of elaborate applications. At a recent meeting with my honourable friend the Minister of State, representatives of the Community Radio Association undertook to send him details of the costs incurred by some of their members, and we shall want to reflect on what they, the noble Lord and indeed others have said on how the question of compensation can be taken forward.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the country is covered by a fairly comprehensive network of independent radio stations which are serving local communities very well and which are financed entirely by private, mostly local, money? Is he further aware that any introduction of a scheme that would further divide the limited revenue which can be raised locally will probably destroy the whole structure of local radio and that most of these local radio stations, many of which are not making a profit at all, heaved a sigh of relief at the Government's decision?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the remarks of my noble friend point all the more to the need for a Green Paper to cover the whole subject of radio.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while accepting the disappointment of those who have promoted community radio applications and their integrity, in considering the future will the noble Lord not bear in mind the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? In fact, to license these stations without any safeguards at all is not only dangerous but grossly unfair to the independent radio stations which are subject to the very severe and proper supervision of the IBA and its rigorous regulations. They also have to pay very substantial rentals to maintain the cost of the IBA. In the matter of compensation, will the noble Lord also bear in mind that those who make unsuccessful applications for such licences receive no compensation at all, and as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, many of the independent radio stations are now finding it extremely difficult to break even against the varying competition?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand much of what the noble Lord says. I think that the Green Paper will provide an opportunity for all those concerned to consider the nature of our national and local radio services in future and the appropriate regulatory framework for them. That will include consideration of the scope for a new tier of community radio stations.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, were not the Government warned over and over again by knowledgeable people that what has happened would
382
happen? Does that not underline the need for them to listen a bit more attentively to expert advice when it is offered to them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is always room for more than one point of view.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on ordnance factories.
With the leave of the House also, I shall arrange for Statements that are to be made in another place on the second Severn crossing and Unipart and Leyland Bus to be reprinted in the Official Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Public Order Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and during this adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill and consideration of the Commons message on the Dockyard Services Bill will be taken.
Following are the Statements referred to above:

Second Severn Crossing
"My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales on a second Severn crossing.
"In February 1984 my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced the Government's decision to proceed with a programme of strengthening and repair for the Severn crossing. That programme is well under way and proceeding well. At the same time my right honourable friend announced that he intended to initiate a study into the way in which a second crossing might be provided in the same general corridor as the existing crossing. Consultants were appointed later in the year and asked to report by August this year. I am glad to say that the consultants have completed their work ahead of time and copies of the report have today been placed in the Library of the House.
"My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I have considered the consultants' findings and recommendations and have decided that a second Severn crossing should be provided. We propose that this new crossing should be a bridge sited at the English Stones, about three miles downstream of the existing crossing with connections to the M.4 on both banks and with an additional southerly link to the M.5. The new bridge would carry a dual two-lane motorway with hard shoulders. The consultants advise that it will be possible to provide windshielding on the bridge.
"We are proceeding with the next stage of planning immediately. This is a major project and much work remains to be done and consultations set in hand. I am sure that the House will welcome this commitment to build a second crossing of the Severn on the main route into South Wales. I know that this decision will also be very widely welcomed in Wales. The Government have always recognised the vital importance of the Severn crossing to the economy of Severnside and South Wales. Our action in strengthening the existing crossing, and the commissioning of this report, its completion by the consultants within the timetable set and the decisions that I have announced today confirm our determination to ensure that the crossings are adequate for future traffic needs and underline our commitment to the future economic development of the Principality."
"My Lords, that concludes the Statement."

Unipart and Leyland Bus
"On 6th February I informed the House that it was the Government's intention, with the agreement of the Rover Group Board, that negotiations should be pursued for the separate privatisation of Unipart by the early placement of shares with United Kingdom institutions.
"With the approval of the Government the Rover Group have reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of a 75 per cent shareholding in Unipart to a consortium comprising Unipart management and a group of UK investment institutions led by Charterhouse Bank. It is proposed to reserve up to 5 per cent. of the ordinary share capital for Unipart employees. Rover Group would receive up to £50 million, depending in part on Unipart's future performance. The Rover Group would subscribe up to £3.75 million for equity in the restructured company.
"Rover Group's links with Unipart will be retained through its holding in Unipart, and by contractual arrangements agreed between Austin Rover Group and Unipart. Return to the private sector should enable Unipart to develop and diversify its operations, while continuing to meet the requirements of Rover Group.
"On Leyland Bus my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry informed the House on 27th June that the Rover Group had received tenders for Leyland Bus from Aveling Barford, the Laird Group, and a Leyland Bus management consortium. The Rover Group have recommended and the Government have agreed that the tender from the management consortium should be taken forward.
"The Rover Group have therefore reached agreement in principle, subject to contract, for the sale of Leyland Bus and a 33 per cent shareholding in Leyland Parts to a consortium of Leyland Bus management and investment institutions. It is also proposed that employees will be able to participate in the shares of the new Leyland Bus holding company. The Rover Group would receive about
384
£11.7 million for Leyland Bus and the shareholding in Leyland Parts. The details of the sale contract remain to be negotiated.
"As I have consistently made clear to the House, there is substantial overcapacity in the traditional bus market and some measure of rationalisation would be inevitable under whatever ownership. It is the intention of the management team to decide urgently on the most effective new structure for their manufacturing operations and on employment levels. Some job losses will be involved, including the future closure of Easter Coach Works at Lowestoft. However, the Government accept the view of the Rover Group that the proposals by Leyland Bus management are soundly based and provide an opportunity to develop a viable bus manufacturing operation."

The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, you will remember that last week I announced that the House would go into recess on Thursday, 31st July. I should like now to announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will return from the Summer Recess on Monday 6th October. It is expected that Her Majesty The Queen will open the next Session of Parliament on Wednesday, 12th November.
Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[References are to Bill (170) at first printed by the Lords. Commons amendments etc. are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 19, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
"(1 A) The scheme prescribed in subsection (l)(a) above shall provide for weekly payments of a community care addition to a chronically sick or disabled or elderly person, or in respect of a chronically sick or disabled child or other chronically sick or disabled elderly dependant.
(1B) Regulations shall provide that payments of community care addition made under subsection (1 A) above shall be payable at a rate that shall be determined by reference to—

(a) the needs of the claimant or dependant in relation to his proper welfare and need for care and attention in a dwelling which he occupies or is to occupy as his home or in which he resides or is to reside as a member of a family, and

385

(b) the extent to which other benefits or payments that are payable under Part II of this Act fail to meet those needs.

1C) Payments of community care addition under subsection (1A) above shall be payable in addition to any other income support payment, including any premium, and in addition to any attendance allowance or mobility allowance to which the claimant or dependant may be entitled."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
"(2A) In relation to income support and housing benefit the applicable amount for a severely disabled person shall include an amount in respect of his being a severely disabled person.
(2B) Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being severely disabled.".
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof.
As your Lordships know, I believe it to be my duty, when this House has asked another place to think again by pressing their views successfully against the Government on important aspects of a major government Bill, to report to the House the view taken in another place. Your Lordships know, too, that I am always anxious to fulfil my duty to reflect the views of this House in discussions with my colleagues in government and to ensure that they are taken into consideration to the proper extent. I hope therefore that the House will bear with me if, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 by another place in lieu of your Lordships' own amendment, No. 1, I also refer to the wider issues raised by the changes made to the Bill during its earlier stages in this House.
This Bill represents the final outcome of a fundamental review, with extremely wide-ranging consultation, of social security. Our proposals aim to put the main income-related benefits on a consistent and simpler basis. Within this framework, your Lordships' House has as it is entitled and expected to do, looked at the detail of the Bill and asked another place to look again at three broad matters.
By a large majority, your Lordships inserted in the Bill an amendment to help severely disabled people who need assistance to live in the community. For reasons which I shall explain in a moment, the Government are not able to accept the original form of the amendment, but what we have produced are proposals which I hope it will be generally agreed meet the spirit of your Lordships' concern.
The second matter was the change of the Bill at Committee stage, reversing the Government's decision that in future everybody should pay a minimum contribution to their rates. By contrast, that amendment was carried by only a very small majority.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, one is enough.
Viscount Whitelaw: I suggested, my Lords, that it was a very small majority. It was more than one, but not very much more.
It is, I think, fair to describe the point as one of major principle concerning the financial arrangements for housing benefit. I emphasise that. As your Lordships know, the other place has now reaffirmed its
386
original position. In those circumstances, and on a point of this kind, your Lordships will not be at all surprised to be invited now to accept the position of the other House.
The third matter concerns the arrangements for payments from the social fund. The changes made in your Lordships' House attracted considerable support from the opposition parties and Cross-Benchers. The Government, recognising their strength of feeling, have made various changes. My noble friend Lady Trumpington will shortly explain these in greater detail, but they include provision for maternity and funeral benefits to be regulated and appealable; and for more indpendent oversight of the review of adverse decisions on other applications to the social fund. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these go some way—though I readily accept that if is not the whole way—towards meeting the concerns of this House.
I firmly believe that this package represents a very fair response to the views of this House. On the three major matters, one has been substantially accepted, subject to some necessary amendment of the details; one has been somewhat modified, with a view to meeting at least some of the concern of your Lordships; and, on the third, which, as I said, concerns a major policy decision taken by the Government, the elected House has reaffirmed its position. I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that this House should now acquiesce in those changes.
I turn briefly to the detail of Amendment No. 2. What concerned your Lordships was the effect of the new income support arrangements on those severely disabled people who, with suitable assistance, are able to maintain themselves in the community. In adding Amendment No. 1 to the Bill, the House was, I believe, anxious to secure more specific reassurance about payments to be available to this group than the Government had at that stage given. But I fear that the amendment was drafted in a way that would make it difficult to operate within our social security system; and would also have gone far wider than was necessary to help the severely disabled people who were the focus of concern.
That amendment has therefore been removed. In its stead there is provision for, in effect, an additional premium to be included in the income support scheme for prescribed severely disabled claimants. It will be paid on top of the other structural improvements for disabled people in the Bill, in particular the disablement premium. In effect, it provides a two-tier disablement premium, which many commentators —including the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services—have urged.
The additional premium will be paid directly as of right to severely disabled people who meet certain criteria. The first is that they should be in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance: so it will apply to those in households where there is no one capable of carrying out normal domestic duties. We think the purpose behind that rule—the need for extra support to maintain independence that cannot otherwise be provided—is a sound one. We have recently announced the extension of invalid care allowance—the benefit that is paid to those caring for disabled people. Consistent with that, we intend that the extra disablement premium will be paid directly to

387
a severely disabled person where there is no one receiving or eligible for the invalid care allowance in respect of that person's care needs. We envisage setting the rate at the same level as for invalid care allowance—currently £23 a week. It is nearly double the rate of the disablement premium in relevant cases.
Our estimate is that up to 10,000 severely disabled people could qualify for this extra premium at a cost of up to £12 million. It will go to a wider range of people than receive the domestic assistance addition now—just over 3,000 people on our latest information, for December 1984. We can therefore expect a significant increase in expenditure and numbers helped compared with now, and compared with the position under the Bill as it originally stood, and as it would be if your Lordship did not agree with this amendment.
There is a further feature of our proposals to which I should draw attention. At an earlier stage in this House we undertook to have improved transitional protection for those currently receiving the domestic assistance addition. We stand by that commitment, which is necessary to protect the position in those few existing cases where payments are made in excess of the proposed additional premium.
I am conscious of traversing complex and difficult territory here. I hope I have been able to do justice to it; but I know my noble friend Lady Trumpington will make good any deficiencies when she comes to speak. The response to your Lordships' changes to the Bill is, as I have said, an extremely fair one. And in particular our proposals for additional help for the severely disabled, which will be of real benefit to a considerable number of people, have sought to meet the concern expressed widely in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 proposed in lieu thereof.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I must now call manuscript Amendment No. 2A which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope that the House will allow me to respond to the remarks which have been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I should like to have advice on this matter. I have direct advice to the effect that I must now call Amendment No. 2A; but, of course, I shall do what the House wishes. However, that is the advice that I have received.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am advised that it would normally be the case, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, that the noble Lord moving the amendment should be called now; but as I think that I could easily be accused of having transgressed some part of the rules of order—
Baroness Jeger: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am going to help the noble Baroness. I hope that she will not be too critical of me for doing something which I believe will be widely regarded as being in the best interests of the House. I hope that the House will agree that it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to respond in much the same way as I did in the first place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will agree that although this may be wrong—no one will be more certain of that than he will be—nevertheless on this occasion it may be the fair way of proceeding.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. It is no less than I should expect of him because we all know his reputation for fairness. He has explained the Government's decisions upon these important amendments, and I am sure that when the matter was raised in Cabinet or elsewhere, he did his best to explain to his right honourable friends what prompted this House to amend this important Bill, and explained that the amendments cut across party lines, as often happens in this House. It is indeed what makes ths place respected by the general public. It is because this House is not a rubber stamp that it has gained the approbation of so many people.
I must take the opportunity to protest as strongly as I can, once again, at the way the House is being treated, with crucial amendments being tabled at the last moment. Some amendments were in print only this morning. In this House we are expected far too often to swallow meekly and without protest the practice of important amendments being tabled late, and on this occasion, to enable the other place to rise a week earlier than this House.
We had of course expected that the Government would make some changes, especially on the question of rates, not because of the principle, which is a good one, but because of the cost. The changes that we are now asked to accept by the noble Viscount are on the whole far more unsatisfactory and disappointing than anything we contemplated. I should like to take the opportunity to welcome the new peers who have just taken the oath, and to express the hope that they will listen to our debates with objectivity.
I wish to deal with the noble Viscount's remarks and I will be brief because I know that many of my noble friends wish to comment in detail later. The amendment on disablement to which he referred was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who made a most impressive speech on that occasion. Of course we noted the Government's concession mentioned by the noble Viscount; but today we must ask whether it matches up to the problem of severely disabled people described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who also made a remarkable speech during the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has since tabled an amendment which we, on this side, believe to be reasonable. It modifies the Government's proposals. The noble Lord has gone a long way to meet the Government's point—and I hope that the Government will treat his amendment very seriously.
The noble Viscount said that the Government had sought to act "in the spirit" of the amendment passed by this House. I put it to him that the amendment of

389
the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is far nearer the spirit of what this House intended than what the Government now propose.
The second amendment that we passed in this House sought to protect the poorest section of the community from being made to pay a large element of their rates bill. And, as the noble Viscount has just said, the Government have reversed it. They have decided that even the poorest claimants, including those on income support, must find 20 per cent. of their rates from income other than housing benefit. The Government have not even agreed to put a compensatory element into the income support scales. This means a cruel switch of resources.
We have to realise precisely what is going to happen to the least well off as a result of this part of the Bill. It will mean a switch from food, from clothing and from fuel in order to pay the rates. Anyone who believes that this is fair in Britain in 1986 with millions living on a low subsistence level is making a profound mistake. My noble friend Lady Jeger will go into this matter in greater detail when she speaks on the amendment.
As to the appeals procedure, here again the Government have produced a device that comes no where near to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his important speech on this subject in Committee. At that time the House rejected the concept of civil servant inspectors in place of the independent tribunals that have worked well for years. I do not propose to rehearse in detail the arguments deployed most effectively in this House. But the principle of a tribunal with a lawyer and two lay members was well tested over a long period. The lay members offered local knowledge and experience. This was crucial to adjudication on social fund disputes. Inspectors, inevitably stationed at a distance, would not have this essential qualification. There would be no oral hearings and the claimants would not have the opportunity to explain their circumstances face to face.
In this country we have always laid stress on giving people a fair hearing. And this, under the Government's proposal, is what people would lose. The question that we have to ask is this. Does the Government's new proposal fulfil the requirements of local knowledge and a fair face-to-face hearing? I regret to say that the answer to the question is, no, it does not. This is regrettable. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others will, I feel sure, deal with this in detail in due course.
The primary duty of this House is to revise legislation. Despite our heavy workload and the strains imposed on this House, noble Lords on all sides have tried hard to perform their duty effectively. On 23rd June and 30th June, this House considered the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House. It was resolved that certain changes to the Bill would be beneficial to the less well off and to the disabled. These changes were supported in all parts of the House. They were certainly not forced upon the Government by the Opposition. The arithmetic of the House alone makes this impossible. They were the product of a
390
sympathetic initiative by noble Lords on this side of the House, on the Cross-Benches, and in some cases from the party opposite.
I appeal therefore to noble Lords to demonstrate on this occasion the same care and compassion as before. But, most of all, I appeal to the Government to think again even at this late hour about these issues. It is really not in the spirit of our constitution, following due consideration in this House by noble Lords on all sides, to seek to change legislation of this importance at this stage of the Bill in this particular way without adequate study. I hope therefore that the Government will concede the reason of our case.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, perfectly properly and quite understandably, saw fit, in nominally introducing Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, to range over a somewhat wider field, I know that he will extend to me for a moment the same courtesy that he has extended to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I want only to make one or two comments at this stage. I do not wish to become involved in the details of matters that will conic up shortly in your Lordships' House.
First, this is a Bill of crucial importance to millions of under-privileged in our society. It was therefore right that this House should revise it with care. In addition, in Part III of the Bill there were proposals that had serious constitutional implications. Those are matters that are always regarded as being of especial concern to your Lordships' House. It was therefore right that we should revise those with especial care, particularly as so much of the Committee stage in another place was guillotined. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will agree that in the course of that revision not one unnecessary word was spoken in your Lordships' House. There has been no filibuster and no time-wasting of any sort. We have concentrated on the task.
In relation to Part III about which I am particularly concerned—the right of appeal to an independent tribunal—we carried by a substantial majority certain important amendments and sent them back to another place. What happened? They were reached last night, again under the guillotine procedure. And, in another place, precisely 47 minutes were devoted to considering not simply the proposals of your Lordships' House but also the details of what should then be sent back to your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon.
What has emerged as a result of deliberations in 47 minutes in another place is, in fact, 19 separate amendments dealing with Part III of the Bill alone. Three of them disagree with what your Lordships decided; one proposes a new clause; five are amendments to omit words; three are amendments to omit and insert other words; and seven are amendments to insert extra words. There is not only a new clause to be considered, but a whole restructuring of Part III. Neither the new clause nor the restructuring has ever been before your Lordships' House at all. This has created an almost impossible position for those of us concerned in the matter. There was the necessity either to attempt to deal with 19 amendments by way of manuscript amendments which would have been

391
totally impracticable for your Lordships' House to consider this afternoon, or, alternatively, to go into print before six o'clock last night indicating our views on 19 proposed amendments in another place before it had even started to debate them, without knowing what decisions it was going to arrive at—although one could guess, because the Whips were on—and without having the faintest idea of the arguments that would be used in support of a proposed new clause or a proposed restructuring. That, I am bound to suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is no way to legislate and no way to treat your Lordships' House.
I appreciate that if we now take action on these matters in your Lordships' House, it may cause some inconvenience to another place. So be it. I believe that your Lordships' House has a higher duty than not causing inconvenience to another place. We have a duty to ourselves. We have a duty to our parliamentary system of government. And we have a duty, too, I believe, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to make sure that in no circumstances can it be suggested that there might be any suspicion ever attached to him (because the idea would be unthinkable) that he was seeking to dissuade your Lordships' House from doing its duty. Our duty is to examine what has gone on in this House at Committee stage and what happened in another place last night, to examine these matters quite fearlessly and, where we think it appropriate, to stand up for our convictions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my position was, I believe, that I thought it only fair that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as Leader of the Opposition, and a spokesman for the Alliance parties should take advantage of the fact that I had ranged rather wider than one amendment. But I think it would now be correct, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the first instance, that we should proceed in the orderly fashion: that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, should now be called—if that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—to move his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not exactly my wish, but I must say what I have been instructed is the position. That is that after the first speech in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, moving the amendment I am advised that I must immediately call Amendment No. 2A. I must also say that if this debate proceeds, and the Motion is put as I originally proposed it, Amendment No. 2A cannot be called at all. That is the position as I see it. I am without powers in this matter. I am not, in the sense of the House of Commons, a Speaker, but I must tell the House what I have been told.

AMENDMENT MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[As an amendment to the Commons amendment in lieu, No. 2]
2A At the end of subsection (2A) insert—
("and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability.").
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity at last of moving the amendments to the Government's amendment. I
392
wonder whether I might preface my remarks by saying to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that the kind of discussion which we have just had would perhaps be more properly taken on the Motion, That the House do now consider the Commons amendment. It would then be entirely separate from the substantive amendments that we are discussing. I merely put that down as a possible improvement for the future.
I should like to be as brief as I can in moving my Amendment No. 2A; but I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C. I hope that will be concluded in one discussion without prejudice to moving them separately if need be.
I should like to start by saying I acknowledge that the amendment which this House moved into the Bill by a substantial majority was cast in too wide a form. There is no question about that. I have been convinced by what the Minister said in another place. I freely acknowledge it. Equally I should like to acknowledge that the amendment which has been put into the Bill by the Minister in another place goes some way towards meeting what we wish to achieve. But, as I shall try to demonstrate, it is just too inflexible and the desire of these three amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 A, 2B and 2C, is to introduce elements of flexibility into the Minister's amendment. There is therefore no conflict of interest between the Government and the rest of us because we are all attempting to achieve the same thing.
I should like to quote from the Hansard of yesterday—it was only yesterday that the House of Commons considered the Lords' amendment—when Mr. Tony Newton said (at col. 398 of the Commons Official Report) that his amendment,
"represents our clear acceptance of the basic proposition that there should continue to be a regulated system of weekly benefit directed"
to these very severely disabled people. That shows the the community of interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, says, this is an amendment which cuts across party lines. There are no party politics in this whatsoever. While I am on the subject of what the Minister said in another place, I should again like to thank him because his amendment in some respects goes wider than the amendment which this House passed. He said that of the 3,000 people at whom the Lords' amendment was aimed the vast majority receive far less than we propose to make available under the new premium. He then said that only 50 persons receive more than £20 a week according to the latest information available. That may be so. He and his amendment plainly have reached a wider number of people, some 10,000 people, as opposed to the 3,000 or so we had in mind. I believe that the government amendments put into the Bill in another place will cost more than the intended cost of the amendment which we have moved in this House. On those grounds therefore I can acknowledge what has been done and thank the Minister and the Government for the consideration that they have given.
I should like to have accepted the Government's amendment without question. But if one loooks at the Government amendment and at my amendments thereto one will find that in three respects I am hoping

393
to introduce flexibility into what would otherwise be a very rigid amendment. The Government's first subsection is (2A) and I seek to add at the end of that subsection—that is, the amount which should be payable,
"that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
That introduces that element of flexibility which we have always thought was so highly desirable and which we also thought was the intention of the Government. Here one has a small number of people. One expects that the social service officer, whoever it may be, who comes to see the severely disabled man—whose disability may be quite different from another, who can remain in his home rather than go into an institution—can find out what his personal circumstances are, assess those, and then say, "Right, your need is £20 a week" or £5 or £50. It may vary as much as that. That is the kind of flexibility which the first amendment introduces into the Government's amendment.
The second amendment is also directed towards providing flexibility. The Goverment amendment reads:
"Regulations may specify circumstances in which persons are to be treated as being or as not being severely disabled".
That is a very rigid division. One either is or is not severely disabled. Think of the feelings of the man or woman who falls on the wrong side, and of his relations, and who, through lack of the kind of support about which we are talking, has to leave his family or his home and go into an institution. All that I am proposing is that at the end there shall be added:
"and how the severity of the disability of such persons is to be assessed".
I consider that to be of some importance.
International standards are now being laid down about the severity of disablement. We ought to be in the van. This amendment would introduce just the kind of flexibility that one would hope to have so that the man or woman whose disability is being assessed does not fall just below or above a single dividing line, but that the disability may be assessed on a more flexible line and give more sense of justice to those who are the subject of this amendment.
Thirdly, there is a new subsection which I hope to insert that the amount,
"shall be calculated with regard to the cost incurred by severely disabled persons in living as householders or as members of a household and to the income support payments available to such persons in residential care homes".
This is crucial. The vote was won in this House because everyone thought how absurd it was to force people into residential care which would cost very much more than the income support which would be needed to keep that man or woman at home. This was therefore a head and a heart amendment. One could pay these people to live at home less money than it would cost the state to keep them in institutions. By inserting this amendment into the Government's amendment one can actually compare the cost of keeping such a person at home with the cost of putting him in an institution and one can then decide which gives better value. I should have thought that was pretty hard-headed and well worth doing. For all these
394
reasons, upon which I shall not elaborate further, I beg to move the first of the three amendments standing in my name.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, amendment proposed as an amendment to the Commons amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 2: at the end of subsection (2A) insert—and as this is a manuscript amendment I shall read the words—
"and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
The Question is that the manuscript Amendment No. (2A) be agreed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am able to support fully the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and, if I may say so, to congratulate him upon the role which he played when this House originally passed this amendment and his role today. I cannot fail to express my deep regret that in an extremely brief guillotine debate in another place last night the Secretary of State and the Government cancelled out an amendment which had been very carefully worked out in this House, in conjunction with not only Peers on all sides of this House, but also organisations of disabled people. The proposal had been presented to this House in a non-party amendment which was carried by a very substantial majority. The Minister in fact took that action the day after his own Social Security Advisory Committee had strongly criticised the extent of the Government's succession of measures to cut benefits for the poorest in our society. I should like briefly to quote what was said by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee warned that Ministers,
"run the risk of causing widespread hardship amongst claimants who are already living at what is generally recognised as the poverty level".
Many claimants, the committee says, would face severe difficulties which,
"cannot be justified by the savings to be achieved.".
The amendment of this House has been replaced by a much narrower benefit for severely disabled people. I am glad that the Government have taken some note of the debate in your Lordships' House and not simply rejected it, as they did another amendment. However, I must tell the House that it is an alternative which is difficult to understand. During the course of today, knowing what had been decided by another place, I have sought to assess from those organisations which are deeply concerned with disabled people their views on this alternative. The Government have replaced the community care addition accepted by this House with an additional flat-rate premium of £23 payable to "up to 10,000" people at a cost of up to £12 million. However, I must say that the criteria announced by Mr. Tony Newton for the new premium are very difficult to understand. First, the claimants must be living on their own; secondly, they must be in receipt of higher rate attendance allowance (most unusual for people living alone); and, thirdly, there must be no one receiving or eligible for invalid care allowance in respect of their care needs.

395
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which brings together so many of the organisations of disabled people in this country, said today (and I have their authority to quote them) that they could not believe that there are 10,000 people in receipt of higher rate attendance allowance who are living on their own. This criteria is much harsher than the present test for the domestic assistance addition which is that adult members of an assessment unit are unable to carry out all those tasks by reason of old age, ill health, disability or heavy family responsibilities. People who need constant attention or supervision 24 hours a day are most unlikely to be living on their own for any lengthy period, except perhaps in a granny flat or in sheltered housing, and all those being cared for by frail, elderly partners would seem to be excluded.
Your Lordships' House is placed in a very difficult position. It has not had the opportunity, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, of analysing carefully and in detail what the amendment means. Of course, it also excludes many of the groups that were in the amendment that was originally tabled and carried. For many chronically sick, disabled or elderly people the flat rate disability premium will not make up for the loss of the weekly additions or for flexibility. Many would not qualify for the premium in the first place since the qualifying conditions are much stricter than for the existing weekly addition. Groups such as kidney patients, terminally ill cancer patients and disabled people who are not on an attendance or mobility allowance are just some of those who will be excluded as a result of the decision taken in another place yesterday.
However, I do not wish to go into that. We can deal only with the amendment that is before us today, the amendment from another place and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I believe that it is crucial that we should support the amendment which the noble Lord has tabled. The Government, as he has said, would be in a totally inflexible position. They would find that one sum (we hear it would be £23) would be set by regulation regardless of the condition of the disabled person. That does not make sense. That is why the noble Lord has tabled these amendments. They are all designed to give greater flexibility. In some cases the sum may need to be less; in some cases the sum may need to be greater.
I would submit in conclusion that the task of this House, regardless of our political affiliations and our backgrounds, is, in this case, to do the best that can be done for disabled people in our society. I believe that the noble Lord's amendments to the Government's proposed amendment are best designed to do that. I wish we could have had more; I wish we could have had that for which we originally asked. We cannot, but at least we can do that which has been proposed by the noble Lord. I beg to support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, before he sits down. He says he wishes we could have more. However, under the Government's amendment as suggested and accepted by another place many more people will benefit and more and more money will be made
396
available. Perhaps the noble Lord would bear those two points in mind.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for that intervention before I sat down. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the conclusions of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. I said that they do not believe that there are 10,000 people in receipt of high rate attendance allowance who are living on their own. This is in fact the centre of the point being taken. Unless there is some flexibility it is likely, as stated by those who are far more expert than I or most people in your Lordships' House, that the figures that have been given will not be accepted by the most responsible organisation which I believe exists in this country to represent the interests of disabled people. The number may be 8,000, 5,000 or 3,000; no one knows. That is why flexibility is necessary.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the new addition for the severely disabled which his amendment has extracted from the Government. Of course it is not what he wanted, but it is a concession and, as far as it goes, it is welcome. What worries me is this. When we discussed this matter in Committee many examples were given of severely disabled people who, because of the number of additions for which they could qualify, would in fact be worse off if they were to be translated to the new arrangements. The noble Baroness made it clear that they would not be translated because of the transitional arrangements which the Government had provided. However, in the Committee we were concerned about the newly severely disabled—people who would become severely disabled once the Bill and its provisions were in force and people who would be as severely disabled as those who were quoted during our discussion in Committee.
The difficulty about the new addition is that, as I understand it, it is to be a flat rate of £23 per week. That might well be sufficient for the majority of the people whom we are considering, and perhaps only a very small number would be worse off under the new arrangements than under the old. However, if the examples that we heard in Committee are correct, it is quite clear that £23 per week would certainly not be sufficient for some of them. The point then arises as to whether they would be able to continue to live in the community or whether they would have to go into institutions.
I support this amendment and the other two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, because it seems to me that they seek to take into account individual circumstances.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend's amendment, which I thought he moved in a very cogent and reasonable way. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that this new benefit will extend to a far wider range of people than those who currently receive domestic assistance allowance, and this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, picked up. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, it will

397
be a flat rate, and will be the same amount as the invalid care allowance, which at present is £23 but which I believe is soon to go up.
Although I echo what other noble Lords have said in that I am glad that the other place did not totally reject our amendment, I, too, am still very worried about the small group of very severely disabled people who are at present in receipt of very high weekly payments for domestic assistance allowance which, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, in many cases, in relation to this very small group of very severely disabled people, is higher than £23 a week. This is the group about whom people have been worried throughout the course of this Bill, and yesterday the Minister for the Disabled, at col. 397 of the Official Report of another place, again acknowledged that there has been concern about this group throughout discussions on the Bill,
Furthermore—and this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, picked up, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us whether we have misunderstood it—it seems that it is only payable if the carer is not in receipt of or not eligible to receive the invalid care allowance. Most of these very severely disabled people being cared for are being cared for by someone who already is or who will now be eligible for the ICA, so they will not be receiving any more help at all. I hope the Minister will tell us whether or not we are wrong about that.
As my noble friend Lord Henderson said, the benefit of Amendment No. 1 was that it provided flexibility, that it was tailored to the individual needs of very severely disabled people; whereas Amendment No. 2 is a flat rate, and inadequate for the needs of the most severely disabled. Amendments Nos. 2A, 2B and 2C would restore the element of flexibility—an element which the Government are usually very keen on. I know they are very committed to enabling people to live in the community—to stay living in the community and to come out of hospital and live in the community. If the Minister cannot give a firm indication that in some way—perhaps through regulations—she will be able to meet the needs of this acknowledged very small group of very severely disabled people so that they may continue to live in the community, I hope that my noble friend will pursue his solution.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that on this occasion this House ought to be objective in its approach to this, and we would all agree with that. On the basis of being objective and weighing up the merit of the argument that we have heard so far, there are two special matters which we ought to keep in mind.
The first is that the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, acknowledged without any reserve that the Government's alternative was a good one. The noble Lord welcomed it and he said that, alongside the amendment which he originally produced, this was better from the point of view of it forming part of the statute. Therefore, we have the recommendations of the Government as an alternative to the original amendment carrying with them the
398
commendation of the mover of the amendment which this House passed on the last occasion. I would suggest that the noble Lord's acceptance of it differs to some extent from the interpretation given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and from one or two comments that we have heard from other noble Lords.
The objective suggestion that I would make is that, if we are to give weight to the merit of the arguments that we have heard so far, we ought to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in recognising the advance on his amendment by the Government, and that would be right. If left there, it would mean that we ought to accept the alternative amendments now put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
However, the basis of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was purely that to be more flexible was good. The noble Lord suggested that this flexibility would, according to his own assessment, make something that was already good even better. Those of us who have some experience both in helping to formulate statutes and, much more importantly, who have to apply the regulations which flow from those statutes will appreciate what I am about to say. I want to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that there are many occasions when flexibility is a hindrance rather than a help. It is so easy to give a special meaning to a new word which is brought into the vocabulary in any argument. I suggest that in administering the regulation that will flow from this it is much better that the people who have to handle it should know exactly where they stand as set out in the statute. I believe that we should be giving them an intolerable task if, in making it more flexible, we give them the special responsibility of having to weigh up all sorts of things which do not come within their purview.
Therefore, in approaching this objectively, I am arguing that the special appeal of the supposed improvement that flexibility would give, which was the sole argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, does not necessarily stand up. We would all have to admit that whatever figures are eventually in the regulation, there will be borderline cases. The argument has been submitted that if it is in the regulation there is bound to be someone just outside it. That will happen whether or not we give this extra flexibility. That is one of the problems of eventually having to arrive at a decision: as is said in America, "The buck has to stop somewhere."
I should be very unhappy about removing the flexibility if I knew that this regulation flowing from this particular statute would leave those people who would be hardly dealt with without any sort of recompense at all. However, we must not view this particular Bill in complete isolation. Those of us who have had to apply these various regulations know that if there is a hard case, that if there are those who fall just outside the clear line, there are other alternative services in this country where that special need can be met, and invariably is met. Looking at the whole of our social service structure, there is no question that a real case cannot be met by another section.
Therefore, in approaching this objectively, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested we should, I am saying that we should accept the views of the mover of

399
this amendment that the Government's alternatives are better than his original ones (and the noble Lord said that he finds them quite good) and that the extra improvement which the noble Lord thought he may be introducing by making the system more flexible may in a way be counter-productive in relation to seeing that justice is done.
It is on the ground of that sort of objectivity that I hope we shall not accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord's flexibility argument, but that we shall support the Government in the extra consideration that they have given to his important section of the Bill.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I have been worried about this amendment, knowing as I do that the last thing that the Government wish is to see such cases as we are considering worse off. I have searched my mind and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with whom I share so much concern for handicapped people, as do all noble Lords, I do not see that it is necessary to spell this out in the way he suggests.
I believe there are occasions when it is better not to force a point for the good of all in a delicate situation. We have heard that there are likely to be larger benefits in store for disabled people in the present form, and I personally believe in the integrity and understanding of the Minister, my noble friend Lady Trumpington, and my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I am happy to leave it with them to get the best possible deal for those disabled people within the policy of directing the greatest help to those with the greatest need. Therefore, I would support the amendment as put forward by the Government.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to support the three amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Henderson. I should particularly like to underline why his second amendment is so important. It brings in the element of assessment. I would just mention as an example the case of our local Cheshire Home. There were 25 or 30 people living there, all known to be severely handicapped or incurable, but nobody—neither the people themselves nor the staff caring for them—knew what they could, and could not, do. It was only after a member of the committee got them individually assessed that the extent of their disabilities became known. Therefore, this is a point of prime importance.
As to the third amendment, 2C, without it I think we shall be left with a flat rate and we shall have members of households excluded. Those are two things that we should have in, and that is why I think we should support all the amendments.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too want to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the amendment he has moved and the other amendments he has put in as manuscript amendments. I feel sad that we had to come to a position where we had to put in manuscript amendments. I say that as a Back-Bencher, because I have certainly had no time to consider, or to consult on, any of the issues discussed in the other place last night and which did not come from there until late in the evening. There was no way that any Back-Bencher,
400
certainly on this side of the House, could have had any time to consider these matters.
I know that a number of noble Lords were under the impression that the noble Viscount would have initiated the debate, or would have spoken, on the proposal that the House do now consider the amendments from the other place. That did not happen. The noble Viscount did not take that opportunity but came in to move Amendment No. 1, and then made a speech ranging widely over the whole Bill. I was then informed through the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that if we pursued that debate any further he would not then be able to call Amendment No. 2A. Of course I accepted that ruling.
However, it is all very confusing for Back-Benchers who have been engaged in the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and right through the whole of this Bill, now to come to this situation.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it may help the proceedings if I apologise unreservedly to the House and to the noble Lord. I think I made a mistake. It would have been better if I had spoken to the other Motion. I am sorry. Perhaps if the noble Lord gets the satisfaction of my complete apology to him, it may enable him to realise that I think I was wrong.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not seek any satisfaction from the noble Viscount, for whom I have the highest regard. All I am saying is that the House has been confused. If I and noble Lords who have been involved with the Bill since it started are confused, how much more confused must be those dozens or scores of noble Lords who have been brought in not to listen to the British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill later tonight, but to vote in what they think may be an early Division on the Social Security Bill this afternoon? How much more confused must they be at this kind of procedure? I hope that they may take the time while this debate is going on to read the debate in the other place and see something of what has gone on.
Those who have followed it know that yesterday there were 184 amendments in the other place, and the guillotine was used to stifle discussion on those amendments. So far as I can see, it worked out that they were allowed roughly about one minute per amendment, and there was a guillotine on it. That is no way to conduct business. That is bad enough. But had there been a gap between those proceedings and these, we could have discussed these matters and put down something. But there was no gap. We come straight into it and we are faced with what is really another guillotine through the kind of procedures that have been adopted here this afternoon.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is a modest amendment, and does not go as far as I should have liked to go. It seeks only to introduce some flexibility into what the Government have done in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the organisation RADAR, have already cast doubts on the Government's statistics. We have not been able to check them, but we would have done had we had the time. It is said that nobody believes that there are 10,000 people in this category living

401
alone. That has neither been substantiated nor denied, but it ought to be if we are to have a serious discussion on the Bill.
We know that the £23 is going to be offered to a very restricted number of people. The criteria do not allow for account to be taken of individual needs. That was the whole purport of the original amendments. We wanted to retain the position that obtained where individual disabled people were able to qualify for special payments like the dietary allowance, the allowance for incontinence, and all sorts of other things, and the new premium was abolishing that. That was the original discussion. We are back now virtually to that position but with an increased amount, but for this limited number of people.
As noble Lords will know, the higher rate of attendance allowance, which is one of the criteria, means that it can be received by people who need attention day and night. They must need attention day and night to qualify for this £23. They are eligible at the moment for the lower rate if they need attention throughout the day or throughout the night. They are obviously severely disabled. People who need attention throughout the day or throughout the night are severely disabled, but they will not qualify. They will be excluded from the Government's present proposals. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would introduce a bit more flexibility and take care of some of that.
I could speak for a long time yet, because we spent a long time in Committee and out of Committee on this very issue. I do not hold that against the noble Viscount, who came into the debate for the first time today. But I say that I feel shabbily treated by the powers that be in the way that this debate has been organised today. My faith in what I was beginning to believe was a revisionary Chamber, a place where we revised things, has been severely shaken by this kind of approach to this Bill today and the way we have been treated on the serious discussion that we should have had on a number of the amendments today. Having said that, I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, at the Committee stage on his amendment, and I am glad that I did so. Now we are faced with the question of what is going to be best for the disabled people concerned. We are told that they number at least 10,000. It is suggested that there should be flexibility, but surely certainty is something that we should be thinking of on behalf of the disabled.
Indeed, whenever we legislate we should be acting in order to achieve certainty of legal effect. I sometimes wish that we did so rather more. But on this occasion we are exchanging the certainty of what the Government are offering in their amendment, which was carried in another place, for the uncertainty that may arise—I think is likely to arise—through the difficulty of definition when it comes to having to define the expression "severity of his disability", which will have to be done by regulations over which we shall have little control. Then the further uncertainty that follows will be the uncertainty arising through the discretion of the official who has to decide these
402
matters. If I were a disabled person I should not wish to have to wait for that degree of uncertainty. I would rather have the thing as the Government suggest. Therefore, with due respect to he noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton (who I should like to acknowledge does so much for the disabled), on this occasion I say, speaking as I hope we shall all vote, that in the interests of the disabled it would not be wise to accept his amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I feel that this is a very sad occasion for this noble House. I could understand if the Benches opposite had been crowded, as they are, because the issue was one of defence, education or the environment. But the issue is that there is a nuance or difference—not much really—between what the Government are proposing and the admirable amendments of Lord Henderson. What we are talking about are not massive defence issues, education or environment: we are discussing what is best for the cripples in our society. To think that these little differences should appear so massive I am bound to say fills me with distress.
I should have thought this noble House would be big enough and large enough to say that the admirable amendments moved in such a civilised way by Lord Henderson, though they might be slightly different from those of the Government, were initiated by the noble Lord and found support from every part of this House on that occasion, and this House will maintain its good name and will maintain its social feeling in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and will do the same thing for the cripples of Britain again this evening.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I wanted to raise particularly the point regarding partially sighted and blind persons and the severe disability allowance. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her reply to me on 23rd June, suggested that partially sighted people were not part and parcel of the present supplementary benefits organisation. I want to ask her clearly: are blind and partially sighted people disabled or are they not? It has already been pointed out that partially sighted claimants of severe disablement allowance are automatically assessed as 80 per cent. disabled and therefore are severely disabled.
Apart from this, registered partially sighted people have been certificated by consultants as being substantially and permanently handicapped by congenitally defective vision, or as being a person in whose case illness or injury has caused defective vision of a substantial and permanently handicapping character. How can someone expertly regarded as fitting this description not be regarded by the Government as disabled, and so entitled to disablement premium?
I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness would retract the point of view expressed on blind and partially sighted persons when we were going through the Committee stage and accept that these people are now receiving severe disablement allowance, which should continue. They are one of the types of persons that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was speaking about. There are severe categories in different disablements, and they cannot be dealt with as a

403
package deal. On one occasion I heard the noble Lord, Lord Renton speaking on another debate and he said that disabilities are not package deals. They are specific to that particular person, and no disablement is the same as any other disablement.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sorry that the other place did not agree to the amendment made by this House, but I should be prepared to accept the new amendment put forward provided that this House accepts the amendments to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. If his amendments are not accepted, a large number of disabled people, whether or not severely disabled, will find that as their disability becomes more severe they will be forced to move into residential accommodation run by the various voluntary organisations. They will not have the funds to live independently. Disabled people, by the very nature of matters, for the most part are low earners. It is more expensive to keep a disabled person in a residential home than it is for them to live independently. Therefore, the more people we force from independent living into homes the more expensive it becomes for the Government, because ultimately the Government pay through supplementary benefit.
By forcing disabled people from being independent and moving into homes we reduce the places in those homes available to take even more severely disabled people out of the hospitals. There the cost is even greater to the state than in a home. I hope the House will accept the noble Lord's three amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for his acknowledgment that his previous amendment was too wide in its context. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has moved Amendment No. 2A and has spoken to the two following amendments. The first two of these amendments seek to write into the Bill that the amount of the premium shall be determined by the severity of the disablement and the assessment of this shall be set out in regulations. The third introduces a factor for the calculation of the amount which means regard has to be paid to the costs of a severely disabled person in a household and the costs of a severely disabled person in residential care. These amendments are all attempts to put more detail in the Bill on the nature of the additional premium and how it will be calculated. Your Lordships will notice that our intention is that the first qualifying condition for the additional premium is that is should be payable to claimants in receipt of the higher rate of attendance allowance. These are the type of severely disabled people about whom the greatest concern was expressed. But we are managing to assist these people without a separate complicated assessment of disablement solely directed to one small element of the income support scheme.
I cannot support the approach which underlies the first two of these amendments. The third amendment introduces a new element altogether; namely, that some form of comparison should be made between someone living in the community and someone living in residential care. This seems to me a particularly complex task to lay on members of staff in local offices. I cannot forbear from pointing out also that the
404
level for this additional premium is, at £23, higher than the addition to the board and lodging limit for disabled people in hostels, which is £17.30. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments are unnecessary. We already have sufficient legal power on the definition of the people who will qualify provided by the Government amendment itself and to set the relevant amounts that will be payable provided by Clause 22(1). With the explanation that I have just given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will not press the points of his various amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 2, your Lordships have already listened to my noble friend the Lord President. For my part I want to stress three main points. First, we have made a significant response to the concern that has been expressed about the position of a small group of severely disabled people. We have written clearly on the face of the Bill a duty to provide a specific amount for severely disabled people.
Secondly, in developing our detailed proposals, we have been concerned to provide arrangements that are consistent with the criteria that we adopt in other disability benefits. In the sort term we would have to think very carefully about arrangements which go further in relation to the position of those receiving invalid care allowance, also paid to support care in the community. In the longer-term we must avoid arrangements which make more difficult any wider look at the benefit structure following the results of the disability survey.
Thirdly—and I cannot understand the confusion felt by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—I must stress that the proposals that I have explained amount to a significant extension of help. The new premium would be paid on top of the disablement premium that we proposed originally and at getting on for double the rate that we have illustrated. As has already been said, we expect that up to 10,000 people could qualify for help at a cost of £12 million. This compares with just over 3,000 people getting the domestic assistance addition on the latest information at a total cost of less than £1 million.
Let me emphasise the words of my noble friend Lord Renton: "Make no mistake, my Lords, any noble Lord who is not content with this proposal would be depriving some 10,000 very disabled people from receiving extra help".
We cannot leave in the Bill an unworkable and potentially very expensive amendment because of concerns about matters that are properly handled in regulations. That would make for bad law. I recognise that the current level of help is linked to an assessment of individual costs. It is precisely for this reason that the spread of payments can be so wide. I would point out that the normal practice in social security benefits specifically for disability is to have standard amounts. There is only one standard rate for adults for the following benefits: severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance, and invalid care allowance. And attendance allowance itself is paid at only two rates, both of them specified amounts. What we are proposing is consistent with that, to set a standard amount paid as of right.
I can confirm the understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in relation to invalid care allowance and, in reply to both her and the

405
noble Lord, Lord Banks, I would say that we must bear in mind that of the number of people who receive the addition of domestic assistance, only about 150 receive a weekly addition of more than £ 10. Therefore, of the small group who receive the addition altogether, only a few will not see their support coming in the shape of the new additional premium.
Another important consideration is the commitment I gave during the Committee stage. This was that, in addition to the normal transitional protection which would operate ensuring that no one suffered a drop in cash income as a result of the change from supplementary benefit to income support, special arrangements would operate for people in receipt of domestic assistance addition. Their cash protection would be increased at upratings to maintain its value. Therefore, transitional protection and our present proposals safeguard those very severely disabled people at present.
The question that has been asked is what happens to the very small nunmber of the very severely disabled people. The answer is that we are well aware of the needs of this small group. We shall ensure that they will be protected by community care payments, not loans, from the social fund. They will most certainly not be financially disadvantaged when compared with those presently safeguarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, queried the figure of 10,000 quoted by my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security. Our figures are our best estimate. They are based on our provisional figures related to recipients of attendance allowance and householders. Of course, it is open to other organisations to dispute this, but I am confident that our figures are reasonable. I do not see how the rules can be harsh—as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, claims—when more people will gain at a higher cost. Even the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, allowed for 5,000 to 6,000, which is considerably more than the 3,000 who receive the current domestic assistance addition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked me again about the blind. I would say to her that blind people would qualify for the disablement premium and partially-sighted people who receive severe disablement allowance will receive the premium by virtue of receiving that benefit. The power in the Government amendment itself provides flexibility. It does not close off consideration of variations in the arrangements I have explained, alternative methods of help or indeed extension of the arrangements. Clearly, as we work out the details, we can take account of comments and views expressed in your Lordships' House and outside, but that is an issue for another occasion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to reply very briefly and, first, to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. I should like to assure the House that, by accepting any one or all of the three of my amendments, the House would not be depriving 10,000 people of the benefit of the Government's amendment. All that I am proposing is that the House should agree to the Government's amendment but add
406
three elements of flexibility. Then it is open to the House of Commons to accept those or reject them or to put other amendments in their place.
I should like to get that straight in the first instance and to couple with it a reference to what the noble Viscount said at the opening of this discussion when he said that another amendment which your Lordships are about to discuss was one of major principle. The implication was that this one was not one of major principle. It is a matter of fine tuning—quite a different matter altogether.
I would say that the House, to use his words, is both entitled and expected to make amendments for fine tuning such as this, which the House of Commons can accept or reject as they wish. That is the spirit in which I have moved these amendments. I do not regard it as one of major principle. I regard it as one which the House of Commons should be asked to consider again and to accept or reject. I think that it is necessary to ask them to do so in that I consider that the £23 a week is too rigid and the criteria for the award of that amount, announced by the Minister in another place, are too rigid.
I would illustrate only one case. If you pay even up to as much as £ 100 a week extra for a young person with cerebral palsy whose only alternative is to be in residential care, you will be saving public money—I repeat, saving public money. So I would ask the House—I do it with regret, and I would not do it unless I thought it right to do so—to agree with the Commons in their amendment but to agree with my amendment as an amendment thereto.
The Lord Chancellor: The original Question was that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1. and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, proposed in lieu thereof; since when a manuscript amendment, No. 2A, has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to insert,
"and that amount shall be determined in accordance with the severity of his disability".
The Question is that Amendment No. 2A be agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said manuscript amendment (No. 2A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 213.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Birk, B.

Airedale, L.

Blyth, L.

Alport, L.

Bottomley, L.

Amherst, E.

Brain, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brockway, L.

Annan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Attlee, E.

Caradon, L.

Avebury, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bacon, B.

Chitnis, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barnett, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darwen, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

407

Dean of Beswick, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dowding, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Nathan, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant, L.

Greenway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grimond, L.

Rea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reilly, L.

Hampton, L.

Richardson, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, l.

Hayter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rugby, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, l.

Hunt, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ingleby, V.

Serota, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shannon, E.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Somers, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Braye, B.

Allerton, L.

Brentford, V.

Annaly, L.

Brocket, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Audley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Bagot, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Bauer, L.

D.

Beaverbrook, L.

Burton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Byron, L.

Bellwin, L.

Caccia, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Camden, M.

Bessborough, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bethell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blake, L.

Carnock, L.

Boardman, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

408

Cathcart, E.

Lurgan, L.

Cayzer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Clinton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter,

Coleraine, L.

L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Avon, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denning, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Donoughmore, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Moyne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dudley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Elibank, L.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Erne, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Falmouth, V.

L.

Ferrers, E.

Portland, D.

Fisher, L.

Portman, V.

Forbes, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Fortescue, E.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Freyberg, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rootes, L.

Gray, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Salisbury, M.

Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Sandford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L.

Harvington, L.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Selborne, E.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hertford, M.

Sharpies, B.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Slim, V.

Holderness, L.

Southborough, L.

Hood, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strachcona and Mount Royal,

Inglewood, L.

L.

Ironside, L.

Strathspey, L.

Jessel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Keyes, L.

Suffield, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Terrington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Knollys, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Tollemache, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Torphichen, L.

Layton, L.

Townshend, M.

Limerick, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lothian, M.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

409

Vestey, L.

Wigram, L.

Vickers, B.

Windlesham, L.

Vinson, L.

Wolfson, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Yarborough, E.

Watkinson, V.

Young, B.

Westbury, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Whitelaw, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

5.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C not moved. ]

The Royal Ordnance Factories
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honorable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about Royal Ordnance. The Statement is as follows:
"On 17th June, I announced the Government's decision not to proceed with the planned flotation of Royal Ordnance plc. I also made clear in answer to questions on 18th June that we would review all the various options to decide how best to achieve our aim of privatisation. That review is now completed and I can tell the House that, with the exception of one factory, it remains our firm preference to sell the company as a whole. We would hope to do so by a private sale if this proves practicable. Over the coming weeks, we will be inviting bids on the basis of a selling memorandum and I will report further to the House when we have made some concrete progress.
"The exception is the tank building business at Leeds. Following discussions between the Ministry of Defence and Vickers an offer has been made by Vickers plc to purchase RO Leeds, which the Government and the Board of Royal Ordnance have accepted, subject to detailed discussions now taking place between Royal Ordnance and Vickers to finalise the agreement. The price will be related to an audited net asset value but we expect it to be of the order of £11 million. As part of the agreement, Vickers will build a major new facility at the Leeds site, similar to their factory at Newcastle. This reflects their faith in the business and their determination to win the export orders which are critical to the continuing future of the factory.
"I can also tell the House that in the light of this agreement the way is now clear for a decision to order a 7th regiment of Challenger Tanks, subject to detailed contract terms. Vickers have agreed that the tanks will be manufactured at Leeds and we have negotiated with Vickers prices which represent an improvement on the terms offered by Royal Ordnance. I am satisfied that the competitive pressures which have operated on both companies during our various negotiations have ensured that the Ministry of Defence will receive good value for money for this important order."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I thank the Minister and say now grateful we are to him for repeating the Statement in this House? But can the House be told why the Statement was obviously first made to a press briefing some time last night? If the noble Lord has done as I have done and seen copies of the press reports this morning, he will know that there is no material fact in respect of this matter which he has given to the House that does not appear in this morning's press. If the Government and the Minister are to treat the House with that kind of contempt, I believe that we are entitled to an explanation. The Minister announced a figure of £11 million, and the report in the Daily Telegraph refers to a figure between £10 million and £12 million for the plant. That is either an inspired guess, or it is a journalist's way of covering up the fact that he knows that the correct figure is £11 million.
What we have heard about today in the Statement is the break-up of the Royal Ordnance factories as we have known them, and as the country has known them, for more than 300 years. Above all else, as the Statement reveals, this is a Government who are pragmatic. This is a Government—and one has only to look at the history of these matters over the last three years—who are capable of twisting and turning and making U-turns in respect of their previously declared intentions. Certainly they are capable of abandoning what they tell this House, as well as the workers and the communities, if it appears that in the short term there is profit to be made for the Government and for others by changing the plans upon which, hitherto, a sale was to be made.
It is more than two years since the Ordnance factories were privatised. Legislation was driven through both Houses which enables the Government to do what they are doing now, and over the last two years we have seen uncertainty, we have seen confusion, we have seen frustration and we have seen the betrayal of a number of good men and women whose future has been in the Royal Ordnance factories.
What are we to make of the words in the Statement,
"our firm preference to sell the company as a whole"?
What are we to make of the words in the next line,
"We would hope to do so"?
What strength can the people whose lives are affected by this decision put in the intentions of the Government, because the firm preference before this week, and before this announcement, was that Leeds would not be sold separately? There was no categorical statement that it would not be sold separately, but the firm intention was that it would not be. What are the workers in the Royal Ordnance factory at Enfield Lock to make of the assurances that they have had that their factory will not be sold separately? There was no categorical statement—I do not want to put words into the Minister's mouth—but it was their belief that it would not be sold separately. With Leeds having been sold off for £11 million, how can they be certain that the Government are not intent on finding bidders who are capable of buying, and are willing to buy. factories of that kind?
Can we be told how the board of Royal Ordnance reacted to the undoubted pressure put on it to agree to

411
the sale of the tank building business at Leeds to Vickers? Is it not a fact that the board of Royal Ordnance has steadfastly refused to countenance separate sales? In my view there is a clear indication that the board has been leaned upon by a government who appoints it and who in this instance of course can disappoint it too.
Reference is made to detailed discussions which are to take place between the board and Vickers. Can we be told whether those discussions will include any restriction on the future of the factory? Will Vickers be free to sell off the factory to someone else, a foreign tank-making capacity, or simply to rationalise Leeds out of existence with Vickers' other interests at Newcastle? Later today we will consider another Government fiasco—the dockyards Bill. Does the Minister recall telling the House then that all would be well and that the unions had TUPE'81 to protect their interests? May I read to the House references that were made in relation to matters that we shall discuss later today in respect of the dockyards where clearly consultation is paramount and is going to take place?
Can the noble Lord tell me what consultations have taken place with the trade unions which are concerned as to the future of Vickers? These are civil servants. Can the House understand that the kind of consultations and the kind of strength that the Government believe is in TUPE'81 in respect of the ordnance factories is what the dockyard workers have to look forward to in respect of the dockyards?
I say to the Minister that he will not get away as lightly in dealing with the trade unions and the communities that are affected by the dockyards as he may think he has got away with this disreputable, shady and shoddy deal which has sold off Leeds to a separate company.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to express our gratitude to the Minister for repeating this Statement which merely amounts to another sorry episode in the sad tale of the Government's determination to privatise a section of our defence industry, no matter what.
Perhaps I may deal with questions on the Statement in the order in which they arose. First, why have the Government decided that no other options are open? Why have the Government decided, as they say in the Statement that they would hope to sell,
"by a private sale if this proves practicable"?
Why are they neglecting other opportunities, assuming they wish to continue to effect a sale?
Secondly, with regard to keeping the factories together, the Government know that we on these Benches also have pressed the whole time for this to be done. Why have they made this exception? Is it the case that this is a real exception? In other words, are the Government prepared to give an undertaking that no other Royal Ordnance factory will be sold separately? That is what the word "exception" means. Can the Government say a little more about how the Leeds sale came about? All the Statement says is that there have been discussions with Vickers. Have there been discussions with others? Have other bids been sought? Has the matter been put to public tender or
412
has Vickers only been selected for discussions about a possible sale?
In relation to the sale to Vickers, I repeat the question which has already been touched on. How is the shareholding in the purchasing company protected so as to protect our manufacture of weapons which are vital to the defence of this country? What is meant by the words in the Statement,
"the way is now clear"?
The Statement says:
"I can also tell the House that in the light of this agreement the way is now clear for a decision to order … tanks".
Do I gather that that means that here was an order for tanks that were needed which was delayed until the Government could make absolutely sure that the profit and general benefit from this order would enure to private shareholders and not to Royal Ordnance plc?
Has any assessment been made of the damage caused to the whole of the undertaking of Royal Ordnance plc by this continuous delay, uncertainty and damage to morale? For two years now this company has not known what its future is, has not known the extent to which it could rely on its own resources, whether it was about to be taken over or what the case was going to be. The argument by the Minister time and again when we were discussing the privatisation Bill was that there was no time for various precautions to be taken, that we must go ahead fast as otherwise the company would not know what its future was and this would damage the business. That was for delays which might have amounted to weeks or, at the most, three months. Can he now say therefore what the delay of more than two years has amounted to in damage to these businesses?
I have a final question. Will the Government now alter course as they have seen how impossible it is to carry out their first intentions? If it is too late to avoid the Leeds factory going separately, will they at all events alter course with regard to privatising the rest of the Royal Ordnance factories; or do the Government insist on continuing their policy of playing fast and loose with an important element of the country's defences?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with as many of the points raised by both noble Lords as I can; and they have raised a good number. The essence of the problem we were facing is that the Ministry of Defence really does not have business to sustain two tank factories. I wish it were otherwise, but that in fact is the case. Therefore there were powerful arguments for the rationalisation of British tank-making capacity, not least to make it more competitive in international and collaborative markets.
That was certainly one of the considerations that led us to believe that the proposal which Vickers put to us was a good one; added to which we were careful to take advice from independent sources to ensure that we were indeed accepting what was a right and proper price for this factory. So there was no question of being motivated by any doctrinaire or dogmatic considerations in this matter. There was the further consideration that we were able to negotiate with Vickers at the same time a very satisfactory arrange-

413
ment for the supply of the various tanks currently on order and to be shortly ordered, as the Statement says.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to a "betrayal"—I think that was the word he used—of the workforce of the Leeds factory. I would say that quite the reverse is the case. The fact of the matter is that the outlook for the workers at the Leeds factory has been very considerably enhanced by the conclusion of this agreement. I believe that on reflection the people at Leeds will agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the uncertainty. Yes, I agree that there has been some uncertainty. I should like to see that uncertainty brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. Indeed, just last week I was at the small arms factory at Enfield, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, knows well. Representatives from the trade unions there came to see me and I hastened to reassure those representatives that, like them, we were anxious to bring this uncertainty to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is quite right. We would have preferred to have sold the entire enterprise in one excerise through a flotation earlier this year. But for reasons we explained at the time that, unfortunately, was not possible. I believe we are now moving very much in the right direction. We have rationalised, or are in the process of rationalising, British tank-making capacity at Leeds and at Newcastle and we are now seeking to find a buyer for the remainder of what is, in fact, the bulk of the Royal Ordnance. I hope that before long we shall be able to give your Lordships more news on that.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one who has worked for many years, albeit in a part-time capacity, in one of Her Majesty's Royal Ordnance factories, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware that there has been grave anxiety among staff—senior staff in particular—with regard to superannuation and other long-term employment rights? Have the Government now reached agreement on these matters with the various parties concerned, or are they still in dispute on benefits of that kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is referring only to the Leeds factory or to Royal Ordnance as a whole. I believe that there are one or two points still to be resolved with Royal Ordnance as a whole, but I have no reason to believe that agreement is not in sight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will deal with the point about consultation with the trade unions at Leeds. Will the noble Lord accept from me that as recently as less than an hour ago representatives of the trade unions at Leeds told me that repeatedly in recent weeks they have written to the Ministry, following press speculation on the future of the factory, seeking urgent discussions so that they could discuss with Ministry officials the future of their members? They tell me that they have had no response. I asked whether they meant literally that there had been no reply and I was told that they had got nowhere in being able to sit
414
down and discuss the matter. Can the Minister confirm that, to his knowledge, attempts by the trade unions in exercising TUPE '81, or merely common justice, have failed or broken down?
The Minister referred to a visit to Enfield last week. We know that the Minister's intention—it is in the Statement—is to try to sell off all the factories as a single unit, but is it possible for the noble Lord to guarantee that the situation at Leeds will not occur at Enfield or any other factory when it is decided by those in Government above him that what they want is not continuity and unity but money in the coffers in order to boost their chances at a general election?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is going a little too far, if he will forgive me for saying so. Clearly I cannot give the categoric assurance he seeks, but as the Statement makes clear, it is our undoubted preference to dispose of Royal Ordnance, save the tank factory at Leeds, as a single entity. We are looking for bids to make that possible. However, I cannot give the categoric assurance of the kind he requests.
As regards consultation, we have made clear to the trade unions concerned that we are ready to receive any representations they care to make. Indeed, now that we have clarified the way ahead, particularly for Leeds, we are ready to talk further and I know that my right honourable friend has today written to the trade unions on that very point.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the tank situation within the Royal Ordnance factories is a very specific one? My noble friend said that he could not see from the Mob point of view the possibility of keeping two major tank factories in operation. Is his advice, as it certainly was to me a few years ago, that there is very little chance of being able to sell enough tanks abroad in the export markets bearing in mind the extraordinarily cheap prices at which, among others, the USSR is prepared to sell tanks? There is very little chance of building up exports in order to maintain two main tank factories. Will my noble friend further agree that the origins of this problem lie in regional policy supporting the establishment of the Newcastle factory a good many years ago, which increased the capacity without apparently any real rational reason for hoping that there would be sufficient markets for the two?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is unhappily the case that Royal Ordnance, Leeds—that is, the tank-making part of the Royal Ordnance organisation—has not been particularly successful in recent years in securing overseas orders. The fact is that the Vickers tank factory at Newcastle has been rather more successful and also has some exciting prospects currently in hand. The way is now clear for the Leeds organisation to share in the success which has already occurred and, indeed, it bodes well for the future for the Vickers organisation. I believe that the workers there will appreciate that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I repeat two of the questions which I asked the noble Lord? I understand that when he has a number of questions fired at him it is not easy to answer them all. However, there are two questions which I believe to be important.

415
May I assume from what the noble Lord said about Leeds that no other bids were sought, that the matter was not put out to public tender, and that the Treasury is content about this way of securing the highest possible price for one of the nation's assets? Secondly, may I pursue the question of the guarding of defence secrets? What arrangements have been, or will be, made with regard to the purchasing company at Leeds to protect those secrets?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the latter point, that is a discussion which I have had with the noble Lord on a number of occasions in parallel circumstances. The fact is that there is a very effective machinery whereby defence contractors are required to maintain the security of their premises, particularly in regard to classified information. As regards Vickers, that will continue to be the case when it becomes the owner of the Leeds enterprise. The arrangements are well-known to Vickers, of course, because it has been a defence contractor in one way or another for a great period of time. I am quite certain that no difficulty will arise.
The noble Lord asked whether we had sought other bids for the Leeds facility. As I said, Vickers was the obvious purchaser of the Leeds facility because of its existing operations at Newcastle. We did not seek other bids, but we took care to ensure that the price we were accepting for the Leeds facility was a proper one.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord says that Vickers was the obvious buyer, but is it obviously right to create a monopoly in the production of tanks and to make it impossible for the British Government in future to order tanks on a competitive basis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to agree that we would prefer to have two British sources from which we could buy our tanks, but the fact is that we could not sustain two sources. Nor could two sources be sustained by success in foreign markets because, as I have already said, Royal Ordnance, Leeds, did not have conspicuous success in foreign markets. Indeed, the factory had not sold anything of significance abroad in recent years. For that reason the desirable solution—desirable as it is—of having two sources of supply was clearly not practical.

Social Security Bill
5.30 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 19, page 24, line 35, after "he" insert "or, if he is a member of a married or unmarried couple the other member of the couple".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4 Line 2, after first "couple" insert "he or".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree to the Commons Amendment numbered 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.
During consideration of the Bill in another place we proposed a minor technical amendment to Clause
416
20(5)(b) to correct a deficiency in the wording of the amendment as introduced at Report in this House. The change is designed simply to ensure that entitlement to family credit is not necessarily restricted to the member of a couple who happens not to be in full-time work. We intend that entitlement should normally rest with the claimant, who, as I have said, will usually be the mother. This amendment removes a slight ambiguity in the present wording. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Trumpington.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 20, page 27, line 20, at end insert—
"and shall include the whole of the amount which he is liable to pay by way of rates in respect of his home."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following Reason:
6 Because it would alter the financial arrangements for housing benefit made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 6.
My noble friend the Lord President has already referred to the fact that another place has disagreed with your Lordships' amendment. I should like to add to what my noble friend has said so that your Lordships have an opportunity to reconsider what I believe are strong and persuasive arguments.
Your Lordships' amendment would guarantee 100 per cent. rebate of domestic rates, but only for those with incomes at or below the income support level. The first point I ask your Lordships to ponder is that this would create sharp reductions in benefit as income rises and thus new unemployment and poverty traps which the unified structure in the Bill is designed to avoid. Such effects are universally recognised as unfair and act as strong disincentives to work. The only way round the problems created by the amendment would be to base everyone's rate rebate on 100 per cent. maximum help. Let me explain what that would mean.
At present a substantial minority of households— about 3 million—are insulated entirely from rises in domestic rates. Under the new structure, with 100 per cent. help as the basis for the calculation in all cases, this would apply to much greater numbers. Let me spell this out. At present for standing housing benefit cases the starting point for calculating rate rebates is 60 per cent. of the claimant's rates. This means that if his rates go up by £ 1 a week, unless his income or other circumstances change, his rebate automatically goes up by 60p a week. This is the same for everyone receiving a rebate however big or small that rebate was to start with. But under a scheme based on 100 per cent. of rates, a £1 increase in weekly rates would produce a £1 increase in benefit—again, no matter how much rebate the individual was receiving to start with. Even if he were only entitled to a rebate of a few

417
pence a week, a £1 a week rise in rates would still lead to a £ 1 rise in his rebate if his circumstances remained the same.
The amendment has another quite different but equally unacceptable effect, which I think is unintended, in that it would also prevent any deduction from housing benefit to take account of the contribution toward the domestic rates expected from non-dependent members of the same household. It cannot be right that a head of household should receive 100 per cent. help from the taxpayer with domestic rates when, for example, other members of the household are in full-time work.
Lastly I come to expenditure. We have been entirely open in our commitment to restrain the cost of housing benefit. Total expenditure on assistance with rent and rates has more than doubled over the past six years. Current expenditure is estimated to be about £4¼ billion per annum. At the same time the numbers have risen so that one in three households are receiving some assistance. Overall our proposals would restrain future housing benefit expenditure and our plan that everyone should make a contribution toward their domestic rates is an important part of that objective.
Those are the arguments. I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that the level of help with rates is set out now in regulations and indeed could be changed without the need for this Bill. Equally, I hope that your Lordships also appreciate that even on the illustrative figures published with the White Paper the majority of those people on income support would not experience any reduction in disposable income overall. Mention of the illustrative figures leads me to remind your Lordships that we are not talking about current benefit rates, nor those applying from Monday of next week, nor even those that will apply from the up-rating next April. We are talking about benefit rates which will not be decided until the autumn of 1987 to apply from April 1988. We are clearly a long way from final decisions on actual cash levels of benefit.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the House to recognise that your Lordships' amendment is nothing more than a pre-emptive measure. It does not controvert any substantial provision in the Bill because maximum levels of assistance are not prescribed in the Bill. They will be set out in regulations which your Lordships will have a separate opportunity to scrutinise and debate. My noble friend the Lord President has asked your Lordships to bear in mind that another place has reaffirmed its original position. I have argued that your Lordships' amendment would be unfair, bad for work incentives and bad for local accountability, and I have suggested that its impact on the poorest households would be modest. I have indicated that I suspect that it is technically flawed and I have pointed out that your Lordships will have further opportunity to debate this issue again when considering the relevant regulations. In the face of all these facts, I ask your Lordships not to insist on Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 6.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am rather confused and slightly amused by the Reason No. 6 which the Commons have given. They say that they disagree:
"Because it would alter the financial arrangements for housing benefit made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient".
There cannot have been financial arrangements in this country which have been altered more than financial arrangements for housing benefits. They have gone up and down and in and out from social security offices to town halls in a state of total confusion. If the Government's only objection—and it is the only objection that is stated—is because of some flaw in the housing benefit aspect of the amendment, which is truly peripheral, then I think that the reason for the rejection is very inadequate.
Last night the Minister said in the House—and I must say that I also think it is most unfair that we have to do our homework under such difficulties and such constraints:
"Above all, the amendment is out of time. It seeks to pre-empt the Government's right to make proposals to Parliament in a vital area of policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/86; col. 413],
The noble Baroness the Minister has of course repeated that statement today. The reason why this amendment was tabled was because of statements which have been made officially, including a statement by the Prime Minister, that it was the intention to require every claimant for benefit to pay up to 20 per cent. of their rates. There was some criticism in the other place last night that this was not a social security matter but a matter for rates revision, and I could not agree more. I could not agree more with that. It is not we who have thrown the problem into the arena of social security but the Government by their announcement of the proposed changes in the social security assessments.
The Government come along, all innocent, having thrown Andromeda's rock into the pool, and complain about the ripples that they have set up. They are more than ripples. They have referred the matter to the Social Security Advisory Committee. If it is not a social security matter, they have been wasting the time of their advisory committee, especially because it says:
"We are seriously concerned at the proposal to limit eligible rates to less than 100 per cent. and possibly as low as 80 per cent. First, we believe that the proposal could cause real hardship to many claimants, especially those on income support. Second, the proposal will cause local authorities extra administrative difficulties and therefore higher administrative costs at a time when the Government is committed to simplifying administration and controlling costs".
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has officially considered the matter and is opposed to it because of the cost and difficulty of collecting many small sums, and the system could in the end amount to a net loss to some authorities. We have had no answer in either place about the difficulties of enforce-ment; the chasing up of those people, the sending in of bailiffs, and the court sentencing which could result if the provision as it stands became part of the law. The association is also concerned about that. There are these difficulties and I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not fully dealt with them. I know her difficulties; she has to read her brief. She is getting very good at reading, as she is having a lot of practice.

419
On a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the average cost to the people concerned would be about £1 a week. That shows that the Government are thinking of doing that. I do not know who is pre-empting who. I read in the Government's housing benefit review, which is a report of the DHSS, on page 41, at table 3, that the proposed change could cost £29 in parts of the North-West and £142.40 per year in parts of central London. It is no use telling a man who is being asked to pay £142 a year that the average would be only £52. Many figures have been quoted, but I understand that the Government expect to collect £300 million or more from the change. It cannot be regarded as academic.
Then there is the question—which I know that the Prime Minister is fond of—of local accountability. If it is thought that the pressures of higher rate contributions from poor people will encourage them to vote Conservative, I do not not think that the Government know the rudiments of politics, particularly of local politics. About 4 million ratepayers are involved in the proposal and we have heard little about them tonight. The Widdicombe Committee found that people with rate rebates still regard themselves as ratepayers, especially as often the rebates are only temporary.
It would have helped had we had clearer informa-tion earlier about when the Government intend to implement the 20 per cent. rule. That information may have made our amendment unnecessary. If they are saying that that will not happen until we have the total review of local government finance, on which they are now working, that would be acceptable. But it is unacceptable in the middle of a review of local government finance to pick on the poorest people and say, "By the way, you must pay a bit more while we are still thinking about everybody else". That is what was behind our thinking when we put down the amendment.
The argument has been going on for a long time. I do not feel that we have finalised it by a long way tonight. I remember in 1974 the present Prime Minister saying, when she was asked about this:
"Within the normal lifetime of a Parliament we shall abolish the domestic rating system".
Since then we have had White Papers, Green Papers and reports galore. All we know now is that the Government are still thinking about a Green Paper. We do not have a White Paper. There is much anxiety and uncertainty.
If our amendment was pre-empting any of the decisions, that difficulty could be put right if the Minister could say tonight that the Government's intention is to consider this along with other reforms of local government finance. Had they said that before, the amendment would not have been necessary in the first place. I very much regret that we have not had that assurance. After all these years of consideration and waiting it seems invidious to pick on the poorest people in the community in order to make an initial reform without the full legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, nothing that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said alters the fact that
420
between 1·7 million and 2 million of the poorest pensioners will be worse off because of this measure. We are back where we started, with the fundamental financial basis of the Bill.
What has been proclaimed as the biggest social security reform since Beveridge consists in shifting some £300 million from very poor pensioners to poor families in work and claiming that as extraordinary largesse. That was unacceptable to us when the Bill was introduced and it remains unacceptable. But, having invited the Government to change their mind and not succeeded, I do not imagine that we shall reverse that at this late stage. But people up and down the country will take due note of what has happened and will form their own conclusions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we had a long discussion on this at previous stages of the Bill, and the issue, unlike that on the previous amendment, is perfectly clear-cut and simple. I therefore do not propose to take up more than a moment of your Lordships' time.
I simply say this. The amendment which this House, against the advice of the Government, put into the Bill would have secured for a considerable time ahead at any rate that there would be a substantial number of local government electors who would, when they came to cast their vote on the competing policies of local government parties, have done so in the happy knowledge that, however much the result of those policies was to put up the rates, it would not affect them. Those of us who are concerned, as I have been for many years, that local government should be a vital and a responsible democratic organisation would regard that picture with great alarm. It was no doubt because noble Lords opposite take a different view that this amendment was originally moved and put in at an earlier stage in the Bill. I am glad that the Commons have taken it out. If it stayed in our law, it would be damaging to local government.
I also happen to agree with the reasons that the Commons gave. The ultimate financial responsibility lies with the Commons. It has made fairly elaborate proposals in respect of financial support generally. Arbitrarily to say that housing benefit shall cover every penny of rate liability is, quite plainly, to undermine and change that. I think that the other place was quite right to reject the amendment that we put in and I hope that we shall accept its amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, although I agree that everyone should pay rates, will my noble friend please keep in mind the position of housing associations which deal specifically with physically disabled people? They often have considerable difficulty in making their outgoings and income match. Often their tenants rely on housing benefit, which is severely delayed in payment. If they have to pay part of the rates without a full rebate, that will exacerbate the situation.
Housing associations of that sort also have much greater voids than other housing associations because once they have chosen a tenant they often have to wait a long time—sometimes several months—for that tenant to be fit enough to come out of hospital and to go into the flat. That does not help their income.

421
I fear that if that position is not kept under review, such housing associations will find their tenants getting into severe financial difficulties and will have to get rid of them. That will put an added burden on to local authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has sought to alarm people, and she will no doubt do it again. She has claimed that the measure will have dire consequences for poor households. We should be clear that we are talking about benefit rates to be set at the uprating, as I said, that is due to take place in the autumn of 1987, not at the next uprating.
Our present plans for social security reform in 1988 include a minimum contribution to rates from that date, but before then—and it is still a long way off—we have made it clear that the proposal will need to be developed in the light of discussions on local government finance reform.
To sum up, the amendment would not increase accountability in local government; it would reduce it. It would not restrain future spending on housing benefit; it would multiply it. Above all, the amendment is out of time.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 32, page 41, line 23, leave out "directions given" and insert "regulations made".
8 Clause 33, page 43, line 9, leave out "general directions issued" and insert "regulations made".
The Commons disagreed to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 for the following reason:
9Because directions provide more appropriate machinery than regulations.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder rose to move:
9A That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9.
The noble Lord said: The remaining amendments are amendments of labyrinthine complexity if one attempts to follow the significance of each one separately. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships, if your Lordships agree, that it will now be possible to deal with all the remaining amendments at the same time.
The amendments all arose out of Part III of the Bill—single payments to be made out of the social fund. If your Lordships will forgive me, because of the complexity of the amendments from the other place with which we are dealing, in a few sentences I may perhaps indicate their effect and where we now stand.
We began in the original Bill, as your Lordships will remember, with maternity, funeral and other single payments to be paid out of the social fund. We began with a proposition by the Government that they should be assessed by a social fund officer who would be a DHSS civil servant, and that there would be a right of appeal to another senior DHSS official who would be called a social fund inspector. We began with a proposition that their proceedings and procedures would be controlled by directions given by the Secretary of State.
The matter then came before your Lordships in Committee and as your Lordships will remember, the Committee decided that appeals should not take that course but should continue to be made as they are now—to social security appeal tribunals, the existing independent bodies which deal with them.
The Committee also decided that instead of directions to be made by the Minister, there should be regulations which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Those were the amendments that went back to the other place last night. Again in a few sentences, last night what was decided in the other place were two variations of what had been sent back to them by your Lordships. First, it was determined there that maternity and funeral payments in future, but not other single payments, should be subject to the social security appeals tribunals.
That is a concession for which we on this side of the House are grateful. We are perhaps not over grateful, because it is not a substantial concession. The latest figures show that maternity and funeral payments amount to only 4.6 per cent. of the total number of single payments with which we are concerned. However, it is a small concession, even if it does not meet any of the major concerns expressed by your Lordships.
Secondly, as to the appeal mechanism, the other place decided by way of amendment that as to those other single payments, instead of there being an appeal from one DHSS civil servant, nominated by the Secretary of State, to another more senior DHSS civil servant, also nominated by the Secretary of State, an independent element would be introduced.
At this stage, I have to invite your Lordships to restrain yourselves and to keep straight faces while I describe the independent element that has been proposed in the other place. It is now proposed that an appeal should lie from the regional DHSS civil servant, nominated by the Secretary of State, to a senior civil servant who would not be nominated by the Secretary of State, and that that civil servant should instead be appointed by a commissioner. The question then arises, who appoints the commissioner? The answer is, the Secretary of State for Social Services. The commissioner thus appointed by the DHSS will have the power to appoint social fund inspectors, and who are they to be? The amendment from another place prescribes that they are to be people made available to the commissioner by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me for not recognising any substantial degree of independence in the appeals mechansism which has been sent back to your Lordships for consideration.
I have gone through the whole body of the amendments carefully and separately. It seems to me, and I am sure it will also appear to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that it is now possible to treat all these amendments as a whole.
There are two options before your Lordships' House this afternoon. One is to accept the new scheme put forward by the Government, a scheme which, for the reasons that I have submitted, is half-baked, at whichever aspect of it one looks. The other is to go

423
forward with the scheme we introduced in Committee. That is the choice before your Lordships.
It would be insulting of me to repeat the details of the arguments put forward in Committee in support of the scheme which your Lordships approved. Many of your Lordships heard the speeches. Many of those who did not will, I know, have read them in Hansard. It is therefore possible to summarise the matter in a few sentences.
We were arguing in favour of the retention of the right of appeal to independent tribunals—the SSATs—which have existed for something over half a century to deal with single payments and which have for the most part dealt with them satisfactorily. We regarded the Government's proposed abolition of that right of appeal as being a matter that had constitutional implications of importance to your Lordships' House.
After looking at the constitutional aspect, we then went on to consider the practical advantages of going to a SSAT as against going to a senior DHSS official, as the channel of appeal. Many points were discussed. There was the fact that the SSAT would be far more consistent in its adjudications than a system of isolated regional DHSS inspectors. There was the fact that the SSATs would have a great deal of local knowledge—far more than the inspectors would be likely to have. There is the fact that the SSATs will permit oral hearings which are of great importance to a disgruntled or aggrieved citizen. What will happen under the new proposals we do not know. Unhappily, the guillotine caught the Minister for Social Security amidships—if that is the right expression for the guillotine—last night, in another place, just as he was about to tell the House whether or not there would be a right of oral hearing. So, to that extent, we are still in the dark.
There is the fact that local SSATs have expert knowledge, usually a solicitor and two prominent local individuals, who really are in touch with local conditions, whereas a regional inspector, who may be anything from 50 to 100 miles away, is unlikely to have a similar knowledge of those local conditions. There was the fact put forward that clearly the SSATs are much fairer in their adjudications. It is a fact, as your Lordships will remember, that over four years, experience of appeals tribunals showed that the Civil Service approach had been wrong in something like 25,000 cases when assessments of single payments had been overturned by an independent tribunal.
There is the fact that there was public confidence, and is public confidence, in the appeal tribunal system. It is unlikely—I do not want to be sceptical about this—that there will be an equivalent degree of public confidence in the officials who, it is suggested, should be appointed to hear appeals. There is the question of expense. So far as I know, no one has yet suggested that the SSATs will be more expensive than the new system, put forward by the Government, to operate. Indeed, the SSATs are already sitting repeatedly in something like 100 centres and will continue to sit, with the additional task now of the maternity and funeral payments under the Government's own proposals.
There is too the question of speed, which was raised several times at the Committee stage. Which would be the quicker? I had to say that I did not know the answer to that, and I still do not. It is true that the SSATs sometimes take a considerable time to hold hearings. That is more often than not because the DHSS is not able to get the papers in order to pass them to the appeal body. It will be the same situation if there is a single person rather than an appeal tribunal. In any event, if I may say so, in case the question of speed is raised again, I would put it that there is no real virtue in coming to a bad decision quickly.
There was the question raised, finally, of discretion—the argument that, in some way, because these are discretionary payments, it is not suitable for an SSAT to deal with them. That overlooks the fact that SSATs have dealt repeatedly with discretionary matters and still do in many ways, generally, I think, to the satisfaction of the public.
Those were in outline the practical advantages of the appeal tribunal as against the method proposed by the Government. All of them, I believe, are still relevant against the new method proposed by the Government. If it were only a matter of practical advantage, however overwhelming, I believe, speaking for myself, that I would hesitate to say at this stage in the parliamentary calendar that it would be right to invite your Lordships to ask the other place to think again after expressing its view last night. It is not only a question of practical advantage. It is, as I said when I began, a question of real constitutional importance.
The tribunal system in this country is deeply embedded in its public life and in its administration of justice. It carries the confidence of a large number of people. An attempt to remove a right of appeal that has worked perfectly satisfactorily for over half a century on the basis put forward by the Government in this Bill is, in the view of those of us who oppose it, profoundly unsatisfactory and has wide constitutional implications. For that reason, I would think it appropriate, in addition to the practical advantages, that your Lordships should consider insisting on the amendments passed at Committee Stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, your Lordships decided on 30th June, by a majority of 131 to 115, that the right of appeal that has existed for over 50 years to applicants for relief by way of social security benefit should continue, and rejected the proposal of the Government to get rid of it. Fifty years of history lies behind that right. It goes as far back as the 1930s in regard to unemployment assistance. It was continued as a right through the national assistance scheme. It is indeed a vital part of the social provision system, that has been relied on by thousands of the most needy elements in our community over those years.
The continuing need for the existing appeal machinery has been indicated in the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The statistics that I call in aid are that about a quarter of the supplementary benefit decisions adverse to applicants have been overruled on appeal through this appeal system. So there is need for it; there is room for it.

425
The value of the tribunal in enabling an aggrieved applicant to put his or her case before an independent body in which he or she could have complete confidence because of the fact of its obvious independence has been a considerable factor in inspiring confidence in our social security system. No one has ever questioned the disciplined way in which the tribunals have applied the law. Indeed, perhaps the conclusive and, in my submission, the most decisive verdict on what we are considering tonight was passed by the Council on Tribunals, an eminent body presided over for years by a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, with most eminent representatives of the professions and of the British political and social scene. It felt inclined to produce a special report upon this issue. Its conclusion is this:
"The people most affected by this proposal"
That is, in effect, what is still the Government's proposal—to get rid of the independent appeal system,
"are among the most vulnerable in our society. Very good reasons are needed before the abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years. It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right of appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council on Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958, following the Franks Report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde".
That is the judgment of a highly responsible public body in which we have placed confidence over the years and to which we have given increasing powers and increasing authority. What is proposed in place of this existing system is a last minute, patched-up proposal that has been accurately described by the noble Lord.
The significant figure in the new scheme is to be the social fund commissioner. What precisely his powers are is not clear. He has monitoring powers. I do not know whether he has any power to rescind a decision of the social fund inspector who was to hear appeals in the first instance. It is not clear whether the social fund inspector will allow an oral hearing at all. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has pointed out, with regard to the social fund commissioner—it is a high-sounding title but it has little in common with what we regard as commissioners—he is to be appointed not, be it noted, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; I believe that normally the social security appeal tribunal chairmen are appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is to be done in the safe political scene of the Secretary of State who is to be in charge of the operation.
There is no indication that the commissioner need be a lawyer at all. I know that one cannot attribute infallibility to lawyers, but they have certain advantages in the conduct of tribunals before whom conflicting views are submitted and brought forward. We are not told in this cooked-up scheme what his qualifications are to be, and indeed what his powers are. It would seem that there is to be a monitoring duty, and there is to be a report to Parliament. But there is no indication that it is a fresh appeal hearing. Whether or not the applicant will be heard by any of these people is totally unclear in what is recommended.
Accordingly I submit that it is a wholly unacceptable alternative to the present arrangement.
426
The Council on Tribunals dismissed what was proposed by the Government not so long ago—at the beginning of this year—as highly retrograde. In my submission what is proposed would be flagrant denial to the most needy in the realm of a well-established constitutional and civil right. Accordingly 1 greatly hope that your Lordships will stand by your earlier decision and enable and require another place to think again.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not insist on the original amendment. I hope that you will accept the amendment put forward by the Commons. I have had experience of all these appeals up to the appeal tribunal. They have even come as far as my court. The machinery is far too elaborate, too long, too costly, with too many insurance commissioners and the like. It is all very well to have that elaborate structure in the pursuit of justice, but if it is too elaborate, it ought to be replaced by simpler machinery. The objective of the Commons amendment is to have a social fund officer. He will make the initial decision. These are not cases of very large amounts. They are very important to the individual—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Denning: Yes, I agree; they are very important to the individual. From the social fund officer the matter can be referred to an inspector. There might have been a query under the original pleas put forward that the inspector might not be sufficiently independent. He is to be appointed by a commissioner; a commissioner is to appoint these new inspectors, to monitor their work and to see that they deal with the matter properly and succinctly.
On procedure, if it is a proper case, one can arrange for oral hearings. One can arrange for all kinds of papers if need be. I see this new proposal coming from the Commons as being simple, fair and just machinery. I have seen a lot of over-complicated, over-lengthy and over-costly procedures. I hope that your Lordships will not insist on your original amendment but will agree with the Commons in that which they prefer.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I entirely agree with the speeches of both noble Lords. I look at matters from the point of view of the claimants. I would therefore say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that one has to think of how the claimant sees it. It is true that sometimes the tribunals have not been as quick and efficient as they might have been; but I think that they have grown to be much more efficient.
I know many claimants; I know them and work with them. They are the most vulnerable in our society. When one is vulnerable and on the edge of real problems and difficulties, one can be difficult, very awkward, and one can feel a sense of terrible injustice even if there is not injustice. Therefore if there are claimants who have a sense of injustice, that makes life

427
very difficult for the supplementary benefit staff. I urge very strongly on behalf of the claimants that there must be, and continue to be, what they are used to—the outside tribunal, outside the supplementary benefit commission.
Many years ago when we had the Police Bill before the House of Lords I remember that there was a great debate to whether there should be an independent person on the police boards investigating complaints by the public against the police. Your Lordships will remember that this House voted that the police should investigate their own complaints. I wonder whether what has happened in Manchester would have happened had there been an independent person on that appeal panel. I draw that point to your Lordships' attention.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote Shakespeare:
"to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man".
Under that dictum I am in a terribly distressing dilemma. On the one hand, I wish to be loyal to the claimants whom I know so well. On the other hand, I wish to be loyal to my party that has—I have to say—regrettably put forward this amendment. I am therefore in a very real dilemma. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give us a very clear explanation, which we asked for before, as to exactly why this has been done. While I deeply regret this amendment, nevertheless I do not wish at this stage of the Bill to impede its passage and I shall therefore abstain.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I have read much that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has written about the nature and procedure of justice. I have read it with great profit and illumination. I was surprised at what he said about this amendment, because I think that his sense of justice failed him in this instance for the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. He neglected to consider the attitudes and the feelings of the complainant.
The proposal being made is to move these appeals away from tribunals, the function of which is to mediate between citizens and the state—between the decisions, that is, of officials who are servants of the Government and citizens who are aggrieved by their decisions. We are moving to an entirely administrative procedure, and calling those civil servants by fancy names alters nothing for an aggrieved claimant. An appeal to an official does not have the appearance of justice, and it is not just according to our notions of justice throughout our judicial system. We all expect our appeals to be heard by independent people who are seen to be independent. Further, I think that the amendment is unjust to the officials. I should expect them to adjudicate just as fairly as anyone else, but they could not, in that position, avoid the charge and the appearance of partiality.
There was, when this matter was debated on a previous occasion, a good deal of talk about the effect upon public confidence in the system. I can state what the effect of the propsoals has been upon people who are claimants, or who are likely to be claimants. These people come to citizens advice bureaux, they come to
428
the National Council for One-Parent Families, and I know what their views are. I know what the grass-roots feeling is, and it is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, a situation in which the least well informed, the most vulnerable and the poorest of our fellow citizens feel that justice is being degraded for them by this sort of arrangement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in moving Amendment No. 9A and speaking to Amendment No. 27, is asking the House to reinstate the changes made here at Committee stage and Third Reading. At the same time the noble Lord is seeking to correct an anomaly in the Bill as it left this House. At that stage the Bill would have provided for two parallel routes for a dissenting applicant in any one case—both an appeal tribunal and an inspector's review. That would clearly not have been satisfactory. The noble Lord therefore proposes to delete the references in the Bill to social fund inspectors.
I recognise the purpose of the noble Lord's new amendments in terms of ensuring a consistent approach, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether it is in fact the right approach. Following our debates in recent weeks we have thought very carefully about the amendments which have been passed in this House. Clearly, some of the changes made would have a fundamental impact on the nature of the social fund. We have debated the principles behind the fund on a number of occasions, and I do not need to rehearse them all here. Suffice it to say that the fund is intended to provide help quickly and flexibly, but in a controlled way, with exceptional needs, and that we believe that the discretionary social fund is a better means of achieving these ends than, say, the single payments system with its regulations and appeals. So we needed to think twice before adopting wholesale the changes made here. On the other hand, we recognise the concern expressed by noble Lords, first, that the pendulum should not swing back too far towards discretion; and, secondly, that when someone is dissatisfied with a social fund decision it should not only be handled impartially but should be seen to be handled impartially. The Government were anxious to respond positively to that concern.
I should therefore like to outline to your Lordships what our conclusions were, and to explain why we believe that the new proposals which were made yesterday in another place offer the best way forward. We have taken yet another look at the types of need which the social fund is intended to cover. We have examined whether some types of payments are in fact more suitable than others for defining in regulations. We have concluded that maternity and funeral payments are in fact rather different from other social fund payments. We have made clear all along that people receiving certain income-related benefits would be eligible for this help without a separate means test, and that these payments would not be subject to budget constraints. They would have been governed in the main by the Secretary of State's directions rather than guidance. There would have been little role for the exercise of discretion by social fund officers. So we have decided to accept the spirit of the amendments passed by your Lordships as far as funeral and maternity payments are concerned by defining entitlement to them in regulations.

429
We also believe, having accepted this change, that it would be right to make these payments subject to the full adjudication process. Our position has always been that the procedure for taking and reconsidering social fund decisions must fit the nature of the fund. Establishing entitlement in regulations changes the nature of decision-taking. Its effect is to import adjudication into the social fund. We therefore propose to go all the way and put these payments on to the same footing as the mainstream social security benefits. That means that decisions on entitlement will be taken by independent adjudication officers following the guidance of the chief adjudication officer and not by social fund officers. There will be a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, and a further right of appeal to the Social Security Commissioners.
I think noble Lords will agree that for these two forms of social fund payments it would not be possible to go any further. These changes represent complete integration with the adjudication system. However, we still believe that entitlement and adjudication are not the best way of providing the other kinds of help which the social fund is designed to offer, where all sorts of different needs may arise, and what is required is the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
We have been over the arguments many times, and in fact there is much common ground. There is, for example, general agreement that the right balance between entitlement and adjudication was not struck in the 1980 reformof supplementary benefit. We were right to think that entitlement and adjudication would apply to decisions affecting regular weekly benefit, but we should not have extended it as far as we did to cover the totality of exceptional extra needs requiring one-off payments. A number of commentators (not all Government supporters by any means) accept that any flexible scheme must have a place for discretion. The question is not whether you need some discretion but where the boundary lines should be drawn. We think that, in so far as loans, community care payments and financial crisis payments are concerned, social fund officers must have discretion to assess the need of each individual in each situation. The rigidity of regulations has not worked well in this area, and we have no reason to believe that it can be made to work well. That is why we think it right to ask noble Lords to agree to the changes made in another place, which would make social fund payments, other than those for maternity and funerals, subject to directions—not regulations—and guidance.
Perhaps I could now turn to the question of appeals and reviews of social fund decisions. We have always argued that one cannot sensibly operate a flexible scheme involving the discretionary judgments I have described within the current adjudicated system of benefits and within the current structure of appeal tribunals and commissioners. Of course we believe that claimants who are dissatisfied with decisions should have a right to have the decisions reconsidered, but the form of that review must fit the nature of the benefit. The appeal system represented by the Council on Tribunals has been developed over the last 50 or so years in a different context to meet different require-
430
ments. The social fund is not like other benefits, nor will it be administered in the same way. It would not be right for it to take over an appeal system designed for other needs just because it is familiar, nor to set up a new independent appeal system which is different in name only from the present one.
I must therefore ask noble Lords to accept, as has been accepted in another place, that not all social fund decisions should be subject to social security appeal tribunals. I have already explained that maternity and funeral payments would be subject to tribunals—that is covered by the amendments passed yesterday in another place. However, for other types of social fund payment, we still believe that we need procedures which fit the nature of the decisions about those payments. They need to be flexible; they need to be informal; and they need to be quick.
By now some noble Lords may be familiar with the arrangements which we are proposing to review social fund decisions. The point I want to stress is that people have a right to a review, and this will be handled professionally and impartially.
When an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision, the social fund officer will look again at the case to see whether there are good grounds for changing his mind. Where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, then the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, if necessary changing the original decision. The aim would be to give the applicant an answer as quickly as possible.
But where he is still dissatisfied, he will have the right to ask an outside inspector to review his case. We introduced this provision at Report stage in another place in response to concern that reviews conducted by local management alone might not be, or appear to be, sufficiently impartial. The inspector's job will be to decide whether the local officers have taken their decisions properly. He will, for example, check whether they had got enough evidence to take a decision, and whether the decision is reasonable in the light of all the facts. What the inspector will not do is meticulously interpret detailed regulations. Nor will he second-guess—or perhaps "third-guess"—every social fund officer's decision.
The amendment will allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint a social fund commissioner whose stature and independence are beyond doubt and to whom all social fund officers would be answerable. His responsibilities would include the appointment and training of social fund inspectors. He would monitor the quality of their decision-taking and report on it to the Secretary of State. He would also report annually on the standards of service by social fund inspectors to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who would publish his report. This is similar to the arrangements now for the independent chief adjudication officer—who advises local adjudication officers on how to decide claims for benefit—to make an annual report.
The objectives of his appointment are, first, to ensure that social fund inspectors' decisions are of a

431
consistently high standard; and secondly, to ensure that the inspectors taking the decisions act, and are keen to act, impartially.
I deplore the jeering remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, concerning his proposals to appoint a commissioner. We already have the example of the chief adjudication officer who is appointed by the Secretary of State, but who is independent of both Ministers and officials in advising adjudication officers and reporting on standards of adjudication. The social fund commissioner will indeed be independent, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, does his cause no good to imply that such a person's integrity would be suspect simply because he is appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I am going on at length because noble Lords complained about the guillotine in another place. Therefore, I feel that I must answer fully the questions that have been put to me this afternoon. The social fund commissioner would be able to rescind an inspector's decision. His job is managerial and his responsibilities are to ensure that inspectors act impartially and carry out their functions to the highest standard. I do not think it would add anything to the performance of his duties if he was also able to act as a social fund inspector.
Finally, we have taken the opportunity of this change to the provisions relating to social fund inspectors to correct a minor defect in the Bill as drafted. Before amendment there was no power in the Bill to change an inspector's decision. We concluded that this was too rigid. Nevertheless, we have brought forward an amendment to give social fund inspectors the power to review their own decisions so that problems can be avoided.
I hope that I have shown that the Government have responded flexibly and positively to the concerns expressed here and in another place while maintaining the basic principles underlying the social fund. I commend the amendments made in another place to your Lordships. In view of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, not to press the amendments which he has introduced today.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me five sentences only. First, as to the discretionary side of the benefits payable from the social fund, the fact is that before 1980 the SSATs administered a discretionary system, and since 1980 they have been administering a system which often includes interpreting words such as "reasonable", and they have no problems with it. It gives satisfaction to the great British public, even if it may not give entire satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government.
Secondly, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for many years presided with great distinction over an extremely elaborate court of law. That had no resemblance whatever to three people sitting round a table discussing a citizen's problems informally with him, which is how an SSAT works.
Thirdly, as to the oral hearings, I still await the answer.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought that I had gone on long enough, but I have all the information for the noble Lord. Where the social fund officer cannot satisfy the applicant's objections by looking at the papers, we intend that the applicant will be invited to an interview where the whole case can be talked through in detail and any new information brought to light. The social fund officer's manager will then decide the case, taking into account all the information that has so far been gathered. Where the individual is still dissatisfied, he will have a right to a review by a social fund inspector. However, the question of how inspectors will conduct their reviews is one for discussion with the social fund commissioner. We would not exclude discussing with him the possibility that if the inspector felt that he needed to seek further information from the applicant face to face, the inspector might arrange to interview the applicant and his representative again.
As I am on my feet, I may have omitted a "not" in what I said earlier. The social fund commissioner would not be able to rescind an inspector's decision.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I take it that, undecided although the matter is at present, it is perfectly possible that under the Government's system there may be an oral hearing before the social fund inspector?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there could be.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, that may be 100 miles away. Can the noble Baroness help us as to who will pay for that? Finally, as my last observation and as a small footnote on this matter, but it does indicate the haste with which these matters have been entered into over the last day or so, I ask your Lordships to look at the provisions for the establishment of the social fund commissioner. Your Lordships will see that the Bill will now provide that the Secretary of State may appoint the commissioner. There is no provision anywhere for him to remove the commissioner. No doubt this time next year we shall be having a Social Security (Amendment) Bill before us. I invite your Lordships to stand firm on this matter.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 202.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Airedale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Amherst, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Avebury, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Denington, B.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bottomley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Brockway, L.

Ennals, L

433

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkender, B.

Meston, L.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Gilford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Oram, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Plant, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

[Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rea, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richardson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Ingleby, V.

Seebohm, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Willis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Camden, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allerton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Annaly, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bagot, L.

Clinton, L.

Bauer, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bessborough, E.

Craigton, L.

Bethell, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Birdwood, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Blake, L.

Croft, L.

Boardman, L.

Cross, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Braye, B.

De Freyne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brocket, L.

Denning, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Derwent, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Dormer, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Dudley, E.

D.

Dundee, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caccia, L.

Elles, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caldecote, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

434

Elton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Erne, E.

Morris, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Feversham, L.

Munster, E.

Forte, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norrie, L.

Freyberg, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Gisborough, L.

L.

Glanusk, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Portman, V.

Gray, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Radnor, E.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Renton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochdale, V.

Hanson, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rootes, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Hertford, M.

Salisbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandys, L.

Hood, V.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Howe, E.

Shannon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ironside, L.

Slim, V.

Jessel, L.

Southborough, L.

Keyes, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

King of Wartnaby, L.

L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Suffield, L.

Knollys, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Layton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Limerick, E.

Townshend, M.

Lindsay, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lurgan, L.

Tryon, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vinson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Watkinson, V.

Margadale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wigram, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Windlesham, L.

Avon, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Yarborough, E.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Trumpington now has a speaking part.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 33, page 43, line 13, at end insert—
"(11 A) A person applying for a social fund payment may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal constituted in

435
accordance with section 97(2) to (2E) of the Social Security Act 1975 against any determination of a social fund officer with respect to the appication.
(11B) On an appeal under subsection (11A) above the appeal tribunal may—

(a) confirm the determination appealed against;

(b) substitute for that determination any other determination which a social fund officer could have made; or

(c) if the appeal is against a determination under subsection (3) or (4) above, set aside that determination".

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
11 Page 41, line 22, leave out from "fund" to "shall" in line 28 and insert—
"(1A) Payments may be made out of that fund, in accordance with this Part of this Act—

(a) to meet, in prescribed circumstances, maternity expenses and funeral expenses; and

(b) to meet other needs in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of Slate.

(1B) Payments under this section.".
12 Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
"(1C) Social fund payments to meet funeral expenses may in all cases be recovered, as if they were funeral expenses, out of the estate of the deceased, and (subject to section 51 below) by no other means.".
13 Page 41, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
14 Page 42, line 6, at end insert "such as are mentioned in subsection (lA)(b) above; and the Secretary of State may allocate an amount, or allocate different amounts for different purposes, for such payments by a particular social fund officer or group of officers in a financial year.".
15 Page 42, line 10, after "payment", insert ", such as is mentioned in section 32 (lA)(b) above".
16 Page 42, line 18, leave out "under section 32(l)(b) or (c) above".
17 Page 42, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
18 Page 42, line 26, leave out "made under section 32(1)(c) above".
19 Page 42, line 28, leave out "made under section 32(1)(c) above".
20 Page 43, line 7, leave out "(4)" and insert "(6)".
21 Page 43, line 36, leave out from "inspector" to end of line 37 and insert "appointed by the social fund Commissioner under section [The social fund Commissioner] below".
22 After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
A.—(l) There shall be an officer to be known as the social fund Commissioner (in this section referred to as "the Commissioner.").
(2) The Commissioner shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Commissioner—

(a) shall appoint such social fund inspectors;

(b) may appoint such officers and staff for himself and for social fund inspectors, as he thinks fit, but with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers.

(4) Appointments under subsection (3) above shall be made from persons made available to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State.
(5) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner—

(a) to monitor the quality of decisions of social fund inspectors and give them such advice and assistance as he thinks fit to improve the standard of their decisions;

(b) to arrange such training of social fund inspectors as he considers appropriate; and

(c) to carry out such other functions in connection with the work of social fund inspectors as the Secretary of State may direct.

(6) The commissioner shall report annually in writing to the Secretary of State on the standards of reviews by social fund inspectors and the Secretary of Slate shall publish his report.''.
23 Page 44, line 2, at end insert—
"(4A) A social fund inspector may review a determination under subsection (3) above made by himself or some other social fund inspector.".
24 Page 55, line 8, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
25 Page 56, line 9, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
26 Page 59, line 16, at end insert "and any social fund payments such as are mentioned in section 32(1A)(a) above".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No.10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11to 26 in lieu thereof.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 26 in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Trumpington).
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 27G not moved.]

Public Order Bill
6.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Glenarthur).
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 31:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("General
. Subject to the provisions in this Part contained, persons shall be lawfully entitled peacefully to demonstrate or peacefully to hold assemblies.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak briefly to this important amendment on the Public Order Bill. As the Committee will see, the amendment proposes a clear statutory provision that, subject to the provisions of Part II, which we are now embarking upon,
"persons shall be lawfully entitled peacefully to demonstrate or peacefully to hold assemblies."
The Committee will realise that Part II of the Bill deals entirely with provisions which restrict the right of assembly and the right of demonstration. The Committee may decide one way or the other about the propriety of those restrictions. But nowhere in the Bill, which is a public order Bill and not a public disorder Bill, is there a statutory right peacefully to demonstrate, peacefully to assemble. It is one of the rights which many of us, indeed, all of us, I suppose, take for granted. It is a safety valve which from our point of view as a nation has proved to be very useful in times of crisis and on occasions when people have wanted perfectly peacefully to demonstrate by way of protest or by way of supporting a cause that they favoured.
It may surprise the Committee to learn that nowhere in any statute is a right enshrined to demonstrate or to assemble. I promised the Committee that I would be brief, and I shall quote only one sentence from Dicey, the great authority on our constitution. I quote from page 271 of that famous volume, the Tenth Edition:
"it can hardly be said that our constitution knows of such a thing as any specific right of public meeting".
Only one more sentence do I quote, and it is from Lord Chief Justice Hewart when delivering judgment in the case of Duncan v. Jones in 1936. This is what he said:
"There have been moments during the argument in this case when it appeared to be suggested that the Court had to do with a grave case involving what is called the right of public meeting. I say 'called', because English law does not recognize any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes."
The Committee has the opportunity at a time when we are dealing with provisions relating, I repeat, to the restrictions on public assembly and the right to demonstrate clearly to put into an Act of Parliament that if people do it lawfully and peacefully, they are exercising a legal right. As mentioned in another place, it is not good enough merely to say that the police will be informed that this is a recognised right. People other than the police deserve to be informed of this, and our nation as such deserves to have it as a right enshrined in statute. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: This right or duty is amply provided for in common law. My learned friend—I call him learned in this respect—goes back to Dicey and so forth. I do not want to be too modest and if he turns to the case of Hubbard v. Pitt in 1976, reported in the Queen's Bench Division at page 178, he will see what I said. I do not like to quote myself, but no one disagreed with me:
"Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights."
Most notable was the Peterloo case, though I shall not go further into that. I went on to say:
"Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. As long as all is done peaceably and in good order, without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction to traffic, it is not prohibited … I stress the need for peace and good order. Only too often violence may break out: and then it should be firmly handled and severely punished. But so long as good order is maintained, the right to demonstrate must be preserved."
Although I said that, I affirm that the right is in the common law of England. It is better to be stated in common law by the judges than to have it put in a statute. I say that because the others disagreed with me on the facts because there was a nuisance there. One does not have all the exceptions stated in the statute. If the right to demonstrate causes a nuisance, the common law will restrain it. But the real point—I stress this—is that these principles are enshrined in our common law. It is much better stated in the common law because the judges can moderate it, deal with it, or give exceptions, as the case may be. The same is true
438
of the right of assembly. All these have been protected by the judges for all these years by the common law. Let them still be protected by the common law. Do not let us start writing words in statutes.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sure that with his usual courtesy he will allow me to say that he is much too modest in thinking that I have not read his judgment. I have it here. It was a judgment which dealt with the common law position. In my speech I made no mention of the fact that it was not part of the common law which was interpreted by our judges. I said that we were dealing here with statutory limitations on that right. If there are statutory limitations, with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, the right to which those limitations apply ought themselves to be in a statute.
7 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With some temerity I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am unable, of course, to quote my own words in any case, Hubbard v. Pitt or any other; and if I were to do so I do not think that your Lordships would pay very much attention because they would have been words of counsel crying in the wilderness. The whole thrust of this Bill is restrictive. It creates numbers of new offences, it criminalises whole areas of behaviour which in a tolerant democracy should be accepted as part of living in a free society. And it repeatedly shifts the burden of proof of offences, placing the onus on the person charged to prove his innocence. There is almost nothing in this Public Order Bill that can be said to uphold, protect or extend the civil liberties of the citizen.
In this Bill, the police are called upon to make numerous wholly subjective judgments. Increasingly, they are asked under the various clauses of this Bill to become interpreters as well as enforcers of the law, with the widest discretionary powers. It is because the provisions of the Bill are so loosely drawn; because the interpretation and the discretion are so wide in their scope and the powers are so extensive that there is a need, I would suggest, for the clearest statement of the principles which should guide the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
After all, this is only the second occasion in our history that it has been felt necessary to propose a measure dealing with public order. Surely, in passing a Bill that deals with the limitation and the potential suppression of the exercise of some of our liberal democratic freedoms, we should at the same time proclaim clearly just what those freedoms are and, if I may say so, provide the police with a touchstone by which they can exercise their very extensive powers.
Lord Butterworth: I shall be very brief. It seems to me that we are at the moment on very dangerous ground. We are about to change some of the fundamental principles of the English law, if I may put it this way, by a side wind before dinner. The right to protect, the right of assembly, is unwritten and depends upon the right that every citizen has to undertake such conduct as seems to him to be proper, subject to not breaking the ordinary law of the land. The danger, if we pass this clause, is that we shall leave

439
the law in an unbalanced condition. We shall give the right to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to assemble, to protest; but we shall remain silent about the rights of all ordinary citizens to go about their business, their right to go shopping, their right to catch the train at Euston Station.
What I wish to say this evening is simply this. If you are going to include in this Bill the right of noble Lords to protest and to assemble, then I ask that you should also put into the Bill my right to go shopping, my right to catch the train at Euston Station—because the rights of assembly, the rights of protest, must be exercised with discretion, having regard to the rights of ordinary citizens to go about their business. If we were to allow this, or indeed the next, amendment to be passed, we should leave, in my submission, the law in an unbalanced condition and the rights of ordinary citizens desperately unprotected.
Lord Glenarthur: This short debate on this amendment has in many ways gone much wider than a debate on a fairly straightforward amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Butterworth has said, we are grappling with a subject that goes towards the heart of our legal system. I understand the feelings that lie behind the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this case. We are all rightly and passionately proud of our democratic values and traditions. Throughout their review of public order law and, consequently, during the passage of this Bill, the Government have thought long and hard about whether we should have a statutory right to demonstrate.
We have decided that to attempt such a provision would have serious repercussions for our civil liberties and individual rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it is a fundamental precept of English law that we are all free to do anything not prohibited by law. Other countries and other systems of justice have taken a different route. They have enshrined in law certain basic rights against which to balance other conduct or behaviour. That is not an approach that I favour because as a matter of principle I believe that it limits freedom rather than guarantees it; but I can see the logic involved.
The new clause before us starts down this path but it does not go the whole way. It seeks to enshrine in statute a right to demonstrate and assemble peacefully subject only to Part II of the Bill. It is silent on other rights: the right to live in peace, the right to privacy, the right to go to work and the right to carry on one's business unmolested by others. At present, our law draws no distinction and establishes no hierarchy between such rights. But this new clause implies that the right to demonstrate and assemble is so important that it alone deserves to be recognised in statute. Are we to conclude that it is the most important right? Will that be the effect of this new clause? We canot be sure that it will not have that effect; and such a result would be fundamentally wrong.
That is an argument of principle on which we may legitimately and honourably disagree but it has important practical implications as well. The new clause states baldly that there is an absolute right to demonstrate or hold assemblies peaceably, subject
440
only to the provisions in Part II of the Bill. That may have serious and unwelcome consequences. It may mean, for example, that there would be an absolute right to hold a procession or assembly on anyone's private land, whether the owner wishes such a gathering to take place or not; because the powers contained in Part II do not extend to private places. The landowner might have no recourse to the law, not even if the assembly or the procession was tortious.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord only to save time. He has not caught the word "lawfully" which is in the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: In that case, I could perhaps cut out half of what I was going to say and speed towards my conclusion. If the police wish to use their powers to prevent obstruction of the highways to stop people blockading others on the way to work, as far as I can tell from the noble Lord's amendment, the demonstrators may say, "No, we have an absolute right to demonstrate and there is nothing you can do about it". That does not seem entirely to concur with the last expression of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. And they would be right unless conditions could be imposed under Clause 14.
The provisions in Part II of the Bill provide a balance—and I think that this is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was hinting at—between the right to demonstrate and the right of others to go about their business in peace. They do so because the law recognises a person's freedom to do anything not prohibited by law. So anyone can demonstrate, assemble or protest, subject only to limitations imposed by law, of which Part II would be a part, but not the whole.
This new clause really does overturn that balance. It does not provide greater protection under the law, or a balance of rights. It does, I submit, produce a jumble, a conflict of rights which cannot be resolved. It is for that reason, above all others, that it is not acceptable. That is why I hope the noble Lord will see the force of that argument and will accept the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: A debate would be very interesting but I think we have had most of it by way of interjection in the various speeches. I think it would possibly be the wish of the Committee that the view of your Lordships should be taken now without a further speech from me.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Amherst, E.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Attlee, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

441

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Darwen, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Meston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Foot, L.

[Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Gifford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Freyberg, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bauer, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Greenway, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gridley, L.

Blake, L.

Hanson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brocket, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Keyes, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Knollys, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Chelmer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Coleraine, L.

Layton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Limerick, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Craigavon, L.

Long, V.

Craigmyle, L.

McFadzean, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Croft, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denning, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Drumalbyn, L.

Avon, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Elibank, L.

Middleton, L.

Elles, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Molson, L.

Elton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Monson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

442

Morris, L.

Southborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Munster, E.

L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinfen, L.

Norrie, L.

Swinton. E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Torphichen, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Townshend, M.

L.

Trefgarne, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Vickers, B.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wigram, L.

Salisbury, M.

Windlesham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Sandys, L.

Yarborough, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

7.19 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: In rising to move that the House do now resume, I suggest we do not return to the Committee stage before 20 minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation Bill
7.20 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move the Motion for Second Reading standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for acting with characteristic chivalry and for the concise way in which he has introduced this Bill. We on this side give the Bill our general support, which in the circumstances and against the background of what we have experienced today is a generous gesture which is not often witnessed in this House! I have one or two questions which I should like to put, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to deal with them in due course.
Both the institutions which are dealt with in the Bill are very well known to us. The British Council and the Commonwealth Institute have an excellent reputation, and they are well known to most noble Lords in the House. I certainly admire and support the important work that they perform—the council abroad and the institute, primarily at least, here at home. I do not overlook that part of the work of the institute which operates abroad. I refer, if I may, to the China Centre, to the East Europe Centre and to the

443
USSR Association. I think it is proper that people of all parties and of none should encourage the activities of the British Council and of the Commonwealth Institute.
It is right, I believe, that we should accept the recommendations of the committee set up under Sir Leo Pliatzky's chairmanship, and the committee recommended, inter alia, that the superannuation arrangements of these bodies should be changed and brought into the Civil Service arrangements. It has been stated that the transfer will result in substantial savings in administration costs. I was glad to note that all those who are affected have been properly consulted. The question which must concern us is that of cost, especially in the light of the financial difficulties experienced by the British Council. It is on this that I should like to concentrate, and I would appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate.
The cuts have been severe, and I shall give some of the figures. In 1980–81, they were 7½ per cent.; in 1981–82, they were 12½ per cent.; and in 1982–83, they were 17½ per cent. The council's annual report states:
"If present policies continue, it is estimated that by 1989–90 the cumulative cuts in the principal grant since 1979 will reach 25 per cent. in real terms".
That would, of course, create an extremely difficult situation for the British Council, and I am sure that on reflection the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend will agree with that. It would be helpful to the council and to all of us if she was able to give us an assurance that cuts of that magnitude will not continue during the next few years.
I now return to the point I made previously; namely, that it has been stated that substantial savings will accrue. I should like the Minister to tell the House whether they will accrue to the British Council or to the Exchequer. I think that is a very important point. I have noted that the Commonwealth Institute's annual report shows that the grant from the Government has fallen as a total of its receipts; the percentage has fallen, and the actual amount has also fallen. The report also shows that, although the percentage of grant used for salaries and wages has fallen, that used for superannuation has risen. Any measure which will alleviate this seemingly growing burden must therefore be welcomed by all of us.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Director General of the British Council, Mr. Richard Francis. We know him in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation. He had a distinguished career with them and he assumes his office at a crucially important time. We wish Mr. Francis every success in his new post. We know that during the next few years the British Council will go through difficult times, not only because of the international situation but because of the economies to which I referred and which have been imposed upon it. But I am quite confident that, in view of the esteem in which the council is held, both here at home and internationally, the Government and all parties in Parliament will do their utmost to ensure that the British Council can look forward with confidence to the future.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to give a general welcome to this sensible little Bill, which deals with the new arrangements for superannuation. I want to raise a rather narrower point than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. As we are discussing the welfare and superannuation of British Council officials, it is not, I feel, stretching a point too far to raise a matter of mounting concern to the council and its employees over the past two or three years—a matter of which I have given notice to the noble Baroness's office.
Superannuation is fine if you are lucky enough to live to take advantage of it, but not everyone is so fortunate. Two British Council officials were murdered in Athens in the spring of 1984 and, as far as it has ever been possible to ascertain, it appears that they were assassinated by a Palestinian extremist. Consultations with the appropriate authorities made it clear that the British Council had to consider the possibility that its staff would henceforth be a possible target for terrorists. As a result of this, between the spring of 1984 and the spring of 1986 the council spent an additional £8,000,000 on security measures. Then, following the American raids on Libya three months ago, further security precautions were considered necessary, and I understand that the council is now spending at the rate of an additional £500,000 a year on these precautions.
So far, I gather that the council has not been reimbursed for any of this additional and unforeseeable expenditure. I understand that there is a possibility that the Foreign Office will come to the assistance of the council, but the Foreign Office's own additional security expenditure has also not received any additional reimbursement, so there may be a difficulty there. What I am suggesting is that expenditure of this nature should properly be borne by the Government from the Contingency Fund rather than taken from main stream British Council resources.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not consider it improper that I should raise this matter today. It was the subject of an Early-Day Motion in another place which will not be debated at any rate until the next Session of Parliament. Obviously I cannot raise it as a separate question in this House until October, but I think it is desirable that we should have an earlier indication of the Government's thinking on this matter. I assure the noble Baroness that I have absolutely no intention of interfering with the passage of this Bill, with its limited objectives, which we support; but I shall certainly revert to the matter unless we can have an assurance from the Government that money will be provided for additional security measures—money which at present can only be subtracted from the council's own slender resources, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred. That is the only point I wanted to raise, and I should be grateful to the noble Baroness for an indication of the Government's thinking on that matter.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I should like to start with an apology to the House. Due to what I fear was a misunderstanding, I had been told that the order

445
of business had been changed, and so I was not in my place when this debate started. But I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kilmarnock, have had to say on this short but I think important Bill. I am very grateful to them for the welcome the Bill has received.
I should beg to move formally that the Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords: It has already been done.
Baroness Young: A further confusion, my Lords. I shall now return to where we were.
The Bill is designed to make certain changes to the pension schemes run by the British Council and Commonwealth Institute. I listened with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had to say about the activities of the British Council, which is responsible for co-ordinating Britain's cultural activities overseas. The council was founded in 1934 and now employs more than 4,000 staff. We as a Government think highly of the work of the British Council, and no one who has visited its institutions overseas can be other than impressed by the good work that it does and continues to do for British education and cultural activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of specific questions about the funding of the British Council. As I am sure he will understand, most government departments and government-funded bodies could make use of extra resources, but the council, like others, is subject to the Government's policy on public expenditure. However, thanks to its increasing revenue activities the council has been in a position to maintain its activity levels in many areas. I would very much recommend noble Lords, if they have not had an opportunity to do so when travelling abroad, to visit British Council institutions. The number of people who apply, particularly those on English language courses, is very impressive. This has meant a considerable increase in resources to the British Council, which I think we all greatly welcome.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the savings that will accrue as a result of this Bill. The British Council estimates that it will save about £120,000 a year in direct staff management time plus a large saving in senior management involvement—for example, trustees' meetings and committee time. The Commonwealth Institute estimates that it will save approximately between £20,000 and £25,000 a year in legal, actuarial and associated administration changes. This will mean a direct benefit through this efficiency to the organisations concerned, but will be taken into account in the annual grant in aid.
The Commonwealth Institute, which exists to organise exhibitions and other activities to foster knowledge of the Commonwealth through education and culture, has 126 permanent staff. Separate pension schemes are administered by both organisations. Since 1972 these funded superannuation arrangements have provided benefits which are very similar to those received by civil servants under the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The close links between the work of these bodies and the Civil Service have raised the question as to whether
446
separate pension arrangements are really necessary. Arising from Sir Leo Pliatzky's report in 1981 on non-departmental public bodies it was suggested that it might be simpler to bring the staff of such organisations under Civil Service pension arrangements. This move would be appropriate for both the British Council and the Commonwealth Institute. After careful consideration of all the effects of such a proposal, this primary legislation has been drawn up to make the necessary changes.
The Government Actuary's Department assessed the liabilities and assets of the British Council and Commonwealth Institute pension schemes in September 1985. This demonstrated that a transfer of assets would not quite fully cover the accrued liabilities for past service. The bodies will therefore need to make contributions which will be no greater than those paid at present, but will include small deficiency payments. From the administrative point of view, both organisations would benefit from significant savings. All members of both pension schemes have been consulted and overwhelming support for this move has been shown.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to respond to the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about security. Security has been a matter of very great concern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and to all Ministers. It is a terrible fact that members of the diplomatic service and the British Council have been assassinated. Therefore, security is a matter of high priority to us. I can assure the noble Lord that we take most seriously our responsibility for ensuring the protection from terrorism of members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council. The implementation of the action plan following the efficiency scrutiny on overseas security in 1985 will enable us to make the right response to the long-term threat.
In recent years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been successful in increasing expenditure on security by allocating resources from within its existing programmes. During the course of the 1986–87 financial year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will adjust its grant in aid to the British Council to take account of the increase in the risk which its officers face overseas. As regards future years I cannot anticipate the results of the public expenditure survey but I should like the House to know—and I very much appreciate the opportunity of being able to put this on record—that it is a concern which I am sure is widely shared. Indeed, it is interesting (and I am glad to note it) that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place wholeheartedly supported the provision of new money for the council for increasing its security. This, alas, is one of the less agreeable problems of the modern age.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State in a position to say by how much the Foreign Office will be able to increase the British Council's allotment for security purposes?
Baroness Young: Not at the present time, my Lords, but perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as I have said to the House, that I entirely understand

447
his concern. It is a concern shared by Ministers. We have increased the amount of money. If the figure is available I will, of course, write to the noble Lord and advise him of what it is.
Points have been raised which I am sure noble Lords will agree are slightly wide of this narrow technical Bill. I responded to them because I felt they were matters of concern, particularly on the funding of the British Council. I am glad to take this opportunity publicly to pay tribute again to the work that it does and to the concern on security. That is another matter about which we are all deeply concerned.
I hope the House will agree that the Bill is a sensible administrative reform. Both bodies depend on Government funds, and their staffs enjoy conditions of service closely linked to the Civil Service. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 8th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dockyard Services Bill
7.43 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill (117) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer of the dockyard undertaking or any part of it whether or not, apart from this provision, the undertaking would be treated as an undertaking in the nature of a commercial venture for the purposes of those Regulations, and, for those purposes, the services of the qualified dockyard service employees together with the rights in or over the dockyard and property used for the purposes of the undertaking shall be treated as a part of that undertaking capable of being transferred as a business whether or not the company which is to become their employer also provides designated dockyard services.".
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
2Line 3, after "shall" insert ''subject to subsection (4A) below''.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak at the same time to Commons Amendments numbered 4 to 13 to the Lords Amendment No. 3 and to the Commons consequential amendments to the Bill, numbered 14 to 16.
When this Bill was considered at Third Reading on 10th July your Lordships agreed to an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, which sought to provide that part of the Transfer of
448
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which referred particularly to an employer's duty to inform and consult trades union representatives about a transfer, should be set out in the Bill itself.
Your Lordships may recall that I questioned the value of spelling out in the Bill selected parts of regulations which are already the law of the land and which the Government are not only obliged to follow under Clause 1(4) as drafted but which the Government wish in any case to follow. Be that as it may, in view of the strength of feeling of your Lordships at the time I have not sought again to reject the amendment: rather, I have accepted the principle of the amendment which your Lordships agreed to.
In order to give full effect to the wishes expressed at Third Reading on this amendment I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and other noble Lords, the amendments which need to be made to your Lordships' Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 in order to set out more precisely the particular sections of the regulations concerned and to ensure that they fit properly into the Bill as a whole.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords concerned, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I believe that Amendments Nos. 4 to 13 to Lords Amendment No. 3, the resultant technical amendment to Lords Amendment No. 1 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 have overcome the drafting difficulties and give full effect to the wishes expressed at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the way he has met the points we raised during the progress of this Bill through the House; so much so that in a way we are in agreement. However, I want to make sure that the amendments we made to Clause 1 are properly printed. If one refers to the amendment to the Bill as originally passed—Amendment No. 117, to subsection (2) on page 2, which is important in many respects—I do not see it mentioned in the Bill. However, that is a printing matter.
At an early stage we took objection to the legal structure proposed under the Bill. We said that the Government were separating the bees from the hive and that they ought not to do that. If a transfer was being made they should transfer the bees and the hive together. Amendments were tabled for that purpose and accepted by this House. I do not see them mentioned and I presume that it must be an oversight. At all events, I felt that I should mention that printing query first.
I should like to give the reason underlying the discussion in this House and the course which we followed. I refer back to the report of the Defence Committee of the House of Commons in July of last year. Paragraph 20 stated:
"There is strong reason to suspect that 'consultation period' is in any case a misnomer, and that the Government has already decided for its preferred option".

449
A little further on the report continues:
"By its handling of the consultation process, however, the Government has forfeited much of the goodwill that might have been forthcoming for a resolute attempt to secure the long-term future of the yards. If genuine consultation had been attempted, it is hard to conceive of methods less calculated to lead to the Secretary of State's 'wide, constructive and fruitful discussion' than those which have been employed on this occasion".
That was the criticism of the Defence Committee. It said that there had not been full or proper consultation with the trade unions on the matter, and if there had been all the trouble might have been avoided.
Because of that the amendments which we put forward, taken straight from the directive of the Community and the Transport Act 1981, secures for the men full information and consultation. Full information is to be given in writing as to when the transfer is to take place, to whom it is to take place, the legal, social and economic implications of it, and the measures which are to be taken which affect the men. All those details have to be put down in writing for the trade unions to consider.
The trade unions can then study those matters and put forward their objections and representations. The Government will then have to consider them and if they reject the trades union representations they have to give adequate reason. It is to see that there shall be full information and proper consultation that the amendment was tabled and passed by your Lordships' House. I am glad to say that it has now been virtually accepted by the Government.
Apart from that, in some of the 1981 regulations the only remedy for the union or the men if there was not proper consultation was to go to an industrial tribunal with appeal to an employment appeal tribunal, and no further. Owing to the importance of this case we took the view that the recourse should not be just to the industrial tribunal but should be to the High Court in England and to the Court of Session in Scotland, because that deals with both sides. If there has not been proper consultation and information, then the trade unions can go to the High Court or the Court of Session to ensure that there is proper consultation. I am glad to say that after some discussion the Government have agreed to recourse to the High Court for a declaration as to whether they have done their duty or not. I think it follows that if they do not do their duty, the transfer must be held up until they have done so.
So, that is a most important provision in the Bill, which will now leave your Lordships' House and receive the Royal Assent. However, I cannot leave this matter without making one or two further observations. In the Commons last night—or rather early this morning between 3 and 5 o'clock—the Government made it clear that their timetable remains unaltered and that they will nominate the contractor in, I think, November and will have the vesting date on 1st April next year. They mean to go forward with their plans without anyone knowing at the moment what their option will be, which company will take over the show, whether it will be British or foreign owned, and so on. Nothing of that appears in their timetable, which they mean to push through.
450
I feel I must pronounce a warning that in the first place they must go through this further information and consultation process properly with the trade unions and I very much doubt whether they will be able to keep to the timetable which they have set themselves. They may come under the same criticism as the Committee of the House of Commons made earlier, that there is strong reason to suspect that the consultation period is in any case a misnomer and that the Government have already decided on their preferred option. It has already been decided to force the matter through and to steamroller the business. All I have to say is that I think if that is the intention of the Government they are seriously mistaken because by application to the High Court the trade unions can insist on having proper information and proper consultation before this matter is carried through.
It is very right that it should be so, because if this project is to succeed then in my view there must be agreement between the Government and the trade unions, or the project is bound to fail. The co-operation of the trade unions must be obtained, otherwise they can disrupt the work with go-slows, or they can work to rule and so on. If the project is to succeed it seems to me to be fundamental that there must be agreement between the Government and the trade unions. I think that all of us want to ensure that because progress and change are certainly necessary in the dockyards. When this legislation is passed it will facilitate that. My only plea to the Government is this: please go through all the procedure properly as it is now proclaimed in this statute; go through the proper information and consultation process which is required by the statute.
I thank the Minister very much for the help which he has given on a Bill which at the beginning was obscure. There were at first two or three pages of it and now that we have added to it with amendments I think there are three or four pages more. But I am afraid that it is still terribly obscure, though we have done the best that we can, and I hope that the lawyers will not have to construe the Act afterwards. I hope that after proper information and consultation there will be agreement and that a proper solution can be found to this problem of the Devonport Dockyard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help me. I have listened very carefully to what he has said, which was most interesting and very much to the point, but we are dealing here with the Dockyard Services Bill. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, TUPE '81 is in place. Am I correct in thinking that these regulations apply not only in the case of the Dockyard Services Bill but also in the case of any other transfer or any other undertaking which may take place?
Lord Denning: My Lords, they apply to transfers of commercial undertakings from one company to another—maybe from the gas company to whatever. They do not apply to a mere transfer of shares. This is a transfer whereby a man has a new employer. In those circumstances the 1981 regulations certainly apply to all those affected and therefore this Bill is of great importance in drawing that to the attention of everybody.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Thank you, my Lords.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I apologise for coming in rather late on this saga. I do so because of the death on Monday of our noble friend Lord Crawshaw, whom we all mourn.
We join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in welcoming the Government's change of view about this legislation and we welcome the amendments and the amendments to amendments that were agreed in the House of Commons in the small hours of today. I should like to speak not about the past nor about the Bill which we have now, which I think is in the right shape, but about the future. I want to raise two points which I think that the Government should consider during the Recess. I know that it is wrong to try to make a Second Reading speech during consideration of certain of the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments at the fourth stage of a Bill, but there are just two points I want to raise.
First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, raised the question of what the unions were going to do with their reinforced powers to enforce certain consultation periods. I understand that there are 18 separate unions at Devonport and to that must be added the unions at Rosyth. I do not know what the total is nationally, but it is considerable. If each of them were to use their new possibility of recourse to the High Court—and I am not proffering any advice to them, still less do I have any knowledge of what they intend to do—they would each have to go separately. That is the way the land lies at the moment. This could impose such a delay on the Government's intended timetable that I think it might be wise of the Government even now to consider the following course of action. They will have an Act of Parliament. They do not have to use it. They could, and in my submission they should, even now reconsider the plc option. I shall not spell it out; time is short, we are in the dinner break debate and the Government know what I mean. It would not be impossible to do that even now, and we believe that it should be done.
The second and wider point concerns the workers in the dockyard industry who now have the added protection for their right to consultation that has been conferred upon them by the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which was effected as a result of a brilliant operation, carried out with exemplary speed by not the youngest of our Members. I for one am struck with great personal admiration for what he has done. So the workers have that. But there are many workers in recently denationalised industries who did not have that protection when their turn came. They were operating under TUPE '81 without the "High Court knobs" on. Presumably however that is water under the bridge. I would not presume to say—and perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help us on that.
However, it is pretty well known that the Government have certain plans for further privatisation of public sector industry. What is to be the position of the workers in British Airways, the privatisation of which is postponed for the moment? What is to be the position as regards water, where legislation is also postponed for the moment? I do not
452
rule out the possibility that the Government may win the next election and carry on with those proposals. I think that it is unlikely but it is possible. What are to be the possibilities as regards the Royal Ordnance factories (except Leeds about which we heard a statement this afternoon) and for gas, which of course is here and now?
Mr. John Lee in the House of Commons was in communication with an Opposition Member of that House at an earlier stage and he said that the questions that I have raised were an effective bar to the Government favouring the noble and learned Lord's amendment. He said that it would not be right to pick out the dockyard workers alone for that added protection, when so many others have not had it and so many others in the future did not stand to have it. I think that there is force in that argument
No doubt the Government being rational and in their heart of hearts quite kindly will bring forward proposals immediately after the Recess to ensure that all the workers in public sector industries whose jobs are to be privatised from now on will benefit from the protection which the noble and learned Lord has dashingly introduced for this one industry—and I mean immediately after the Recess.
8 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that this is the opportunity for me to make a general response to what has happened, but I know that various amendments need to be moved.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have spoken to all the amendments and it is therefore open to the noble Lord to do likewise.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is fine, my Lords. I begin by acknowledging that at the end of a difficult period agreement was reached, which, so far as we are concerned, will not be breached either here or in another place. However, we are greatly puzzled about the import of what we have achieved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I and many others are convinced that we have strengthened protections for the trade unions. But in some discussions people say that nothing has changed; the timetable has not changed and neither have the procedures. We know that there is recourse to the High Court. But as Mr. John Lee said last night in another place, the timescale remains unchanged. We are labouring under some difficulty without recourse to the precise report, but in winding-up he said that we were talking about a full four-month period between the selection of the contractor for the particular yards and the date of 6th April 1987, when commercial management begins.
I think that the Government should take fully on board what the noble and learned Lord said. They may believe that nothing has changed, but the trade unions and the courts may believe that there has been a change, and that may be a matter of dispute which in the event may need to be tested. I am an optimist. I accept what the Government say, that they fully intend to carry out all the provisions of TUPE '81, but they certainly did not intend to do so at eight o'clock on 24th July, with the Bill in the shape in which it is now. They have had to be dragged, step by little step, along the way.

453
All attempts to write on the face of the Bill bits of TUPE '81 in respect of redundancies, pensions, and so on, were resisted. We were told that all that was taken care of in TUPE '81: "Don't worry lads, it's all there". However, when light was thrown on that document we saw even more than we were told was there. Using the word in its best sense, we have exploited what was there and brought it out into the light of day.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We cannot advise anyone on what they should do in the light of the changed circumstances. But I can say to those outside the House that circumstances have changed. The Government resisted alterations month after month at various stages of the Bill in this House and in another place. Two weeks ago tonight in this place they were faced with reality, to their surprise and no doubt to their disappointment—
Lord Trefgarne: It was a surprise, my Lords.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord can say that again, my Lords. Three cheers for the Garden Party! The reality was the timescale. Had agreement not been reached by tonight, they would have been faced with another defeat in this House—and I make no forecast—or a delay of three months. As I said this afternoon, the Government are pragmatic. They want in their possession by tomorrow this Bill, and it is a new Bill when we talk about opportunities. It is a great victory not just for the noble and learned Lord, who declared his passionate and emotional interest in the issue by virtue of the long association that he and his family have had with all things naval and with the dockyards. I believe that that was an extra spur, and he has done his duty not only to his conscience but to the city of Plymouth, to Rosyth, to the trade unions and to the nation. I certainly am grateful to him.
The Minister has always sought to be fair. He should not ignore the fact that there is a new spirit in the air, not only in the House but in communities and bodies such as the council of the city of Plymouth and the regional authority of Rosyth. They can now see words on the face of the Bill which give them various opportunities. They will not have to take advantage of them if the Government intend to consult much more positively than they have in the past.
The noble and learned Lord quoted passages from a report which indicated that the committee felt that the Government were treating their responsibilities in a cavalier way. Let us just say that they have learnt from that stricture. I am prepared to be generous. The trade unions have certainly learnt. They have learnt that they have an opportunity to get a better deal. We are not trying to lead them. We hope that out of all this will come the opportunity for common sense and for reflection.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in an attempt to be constructive asked the Government to reflect. They have the opportunity to think again. We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. His victory was almost single-handed. But the troops were required to be here and they did not come solely from one part of the House. They came from the Alliance and Labour Benches, and
454
some from the Conservative Benches; but, more important, every single Cross-Bencher in the House that night listened to the debate and came out against the Government's view.
I firmly believe that more people should have taken the trouble to listen to the arguments over the years, without the advantage of the presentation of the noble and learned Lord. They are convincing. We on this side of the House are pleased that agreement was reached. We played a small part. I cannot say that we wish the Bill well. So far as I am concerned, such a Bill dealing with the dockyards could not go to a better place than the knacker's yard. But I wish the trade unions and others well in using the provisions given to them by the amendments to make sure that they can get as much as they can out of the Government.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I gather that we are taking Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 at the same time. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the trouble that he has taken. He came to Plymouth. We did a tour of the dockyards. He asked innumerable questions. We both came back very much enlightened.
I am disappointed that there were no consultations with the trade unions before the Bill was introduced. I have done my best to get the industrial and non-industrial trade unions together. I am sad that they were not consulted. Surely it is much better to consult before a Bill, because we would then know where we were. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, there are 18 different trade unions in the yard. They all have their own ideas. I have raised this point before. We may have further difficulties if we are not careful.
Amendment No. 3 provides:
"Before any employee in a Royal Dockyard is transferred compulsorily without his consent".
But the Bill is called something different; it is called the Dockyard Services Bill. Is "Royal Dockyard" a misprint? This point has not been mentioned before. I had an opportunity to discuss the Bill with the Secretary of State before I saw that point. I understand that one has to have the Queen's Agreement if a dockyard is to continue to be called a Royal Dockyard. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether that is correct or not.
I should also like to know what contact we will have with the dockyards in the future. We have a defence debate every year. Until now we have been able to debate the Royal Dockyards. The Royal Dockyards are tied up with the Royal Navy. I should like to know what tie there will be in the future. For instance, will the dockyards be allowed to have Navy days? We never got down to discussing what communication there would be in the future between the dockyards and the Navy. Those points are essential. I have asked about those matters but have received no answer. I have heard nothing new tonight.
I want to know what action will be taken against apprentices and whether the dockyards will keep their apprentices in the future.
Subsection (4C) provides:
"The Secretary of State shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade unions and in the course of those consultations shall"—

455
and the matters are then set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). If the Secretary of State rejects any of the representations, he must give his reasons. How will that be done? Will the trade unions be consulted and then told whether the answer is yes or no? Will the matter be reconsidered? Is my noble friend listening or gossiping?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am listening.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, paragraph (d) provides:
"The measures which the transferee envisages he (the transferee) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to such of those employees as become employees of the transferee after the transfer".
Perhaps my noble friend will explain what that means.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has mentioned other points. I hope that in future there will be good contact between the city of Plymouth and local people; that people will be treated as human beings and will not have to accept all these points without consultation. It is unfortunate that all this should happen after the dockyards have existed for nearly 300 years. I hope that when the Bill is passed matters will be on a better level. We do not want trouble. We have not had much trouble in the past. I have known the dockyards for 30 years now. I feel that we should do everything we can to make the dockyards work well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for what he has tried to do and the Secretary of State, who was kind enough to see me on Monday last. I hope that as a result of those conversations the Government will take a wider view in future. I hope that the human side of such proposals will be taken into account. Transfers are not easy. We want to do the best we can to ensure that people have the jobs that they want.
Some 22,000 people go into the Devonport dockyard each day. They are not all dockyard employees. We must think of the other people who work in the yard and see that they are given the right help in the future. I should like to thank my noble friend for his patience, but I should like to see the more human side of proposals taken into account in the future.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his acceptance of what I now propose and to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who likewise, as I understood it, despite a number of reservations, accepts what is now in front of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about the implications of what we propose tonight in respect of this Bill in other circumstances where the TUPE regulations may apply. I made it clear on three occasions that with regard to this Bill the Government did not consider that the amendments which your Lordships agreed were necessary. That remains our position. We do not think that they are necessary because they call upon us to do what we were going to do anyway, and that remains our position.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked about the details of consultation. The requirement upon us is spelt out fully in the regulations to which I have
456
referred and which have been referred to on many occasions during the passage of this legislation. The Government are bound by them. A part of those regulations is now spelt out on the face of the Bill, as was your Lordships' wish. The additional point about access to the High Court has also been included at the instigation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
My noble friend Lady Vickers also asked me a number of other points which do not directly arise from the amendments. I will, if I may, reply to her by letter. I hope that that will be satisfactory.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
"(4A) Before any employee in a Royal Dockyard is transferred compulsorily without his consent from the service of the Crown to the service of any other employer the following provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall be fulfilled.
(4B) Long enough before the transfer to enable consultations to take place between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the trade unions, the Secretary of State shall inform those representatives of—

(a) the fact that the transfer is to take place, when approxi- mately it is to take place, and the reasons for it;

(b) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the effected employees;

(c) the measures which he envisages he (the Secretary of State) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees; and

(d)the measures which the transferee envisages he (the transferee) will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to such of those employees as become employees of the transferee after the transfer.

(4C) The Secretary of State shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade unions and in the course of those consultations shall—

(a) consider any representations made by the trade union representatives, and

(b) reply to those representations, and, if he rejects any of those representations, give his reasons.".

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendments:
4 Leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert—
"(4A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in their application to the transfer of the dockyard undertaking or any part of it, shall have effect as if, for regulation 10 (duty to inform and consult trade union representatives), there were substituted the provisions of subsections (4B) to (4D) below, and (unless the remedy provided by section (Failure to inform or consult trade unions: High Court and Court of Session remedies) is invoked) the remedies by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal provided for by, and the other provisions of, regulation 11 shall be available and shall apply in relation to those subsections as they would in relation to regulation 10 or any corresponding provision of it.'.
5 Line 9, leave out 'trade unions' and insert 'independent trade unions recognised by him in respect of the employees'.
6 Line 9, after 'shall", insert 'in accordance with subsection (8) below.'.
7 Line 15, leave out 'effected'.
8 Line 16, leave out '(the Secretary of State)'.
9 Line 18, after 'employees', insert 'or, if he envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact'.
10 Line 19, leave out 'transferee envisages he (the transferee)' and insert 'company which is to become their employer envisages that it'.
11 Line 21, leave out from 'to' to end of line 22 and insert 'those employees or, if the company envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact.
(4BB) The company which is to become their employer shall give to the Secretary of State such information at such time as will enable him to perform the duty imposed on him by virtue of subsection (4B)(d) above.'.
12 Line 23, after 'State', insert', where he envisages that he will, in connection with the transfer, be taking measures in relation to employees in respect of whom an independent trade union is recognised by him,'.
13 Line 29, at end insert—
'(4D) If in any case there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to perform a duty imposed on him by subsection (4B) or (4C) above, he shall take all such steps towards performing that duty as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.'.
Lord Trefgarne: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments Nos. 4 to 13 and Lords Amendment No. 3.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
The Commons have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
14 Page 2, line 13, leave out "each employee" and insert "the employees".
15 Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
" "trade union" and "independent trade union" have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and "recognised", in relation to an independent trade union, means recognised to any extent for the purpose of collective bargaining (within the meaning of the Employment Protection Act 1975);
and any information which is to be given to the representatives of a trade union shall be delivered to them or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.".
16 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
'Failure to inform or consult trade unions: High Court and Court of Session remedies.
(1) A trade union as respects which the Secretary of State has a duty under section 1 (4B) or (4C) above to give information or enter into consultations may, where it alleges that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil that duty, bring an action in the High Court for a declaration as to whether or not he has failed to fulfil that duty, and the Court may make a declaration accordingly.
(2) In Scotland, a trade union as respects which the Secretary of State has a duty under section 1(4B) or (4C) above to give information or enter into consultations may, where it alleges that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil that duty, raise an action in the Court of Session for a declarator as to whether or not he has failed to fulfil that duty, and the Court may make a declarator accordingly.
(3) No proceedings may be brought under this section if a complaint to an industrial tribunal has been made under the provisions applied by section 1(4A) above.'.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this stage is as good as any other to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, whether he is ready to say something in answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, about the disappearance of the word "Royal" from the title of the Bill.
458
I put down a Question at an earlier stage asking what the precedent was for calling a private company the "The Royal something company" as in the Royal Dockyard Company, which would result from the Bill. I received the Answer that it was not customary publicly to give the reasons why Her Majesty the Queen assented or refused the use of the description "Royal" before a private body. That clearly implies that the question has been put to the Queen and that she has accepted the idea.
Unless I am mistaken, the word has vanished from the Bill's Title. An explanation to the House may be in order at this point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this was a matter about which I wrote to my noble friend Lady Vickers recently. Perhaps with my noble friend's permission I may pass a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, why are the words "Royal Dockyards" printed in the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of what appears on the face of the Bill and what may ultimately emerge as the name of the organisation is, if I may say so, a different one.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is a matter that may be of wider interest than is simply to be satisfied by a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and myself. Two questions should be of interest to the House. Has there been a change in the Short Title of the Bill during its passage through Parliament? And, if so, why?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak for the third or the fourth time on the matter, no, there has been no change—I have not noticed it anyway—to the Short Title of the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord wants wider dissemination of the letter that I have written to my noble friend Lady Vickers or of this matter generally, I should be happy to reply promptly to any further question, say for written Answer, that he may like to table.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Order Bill
8.22 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 31A not moved.]
Clause 11 [ance notice of public processions
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 40, after ("procession") insert ("in which not less than one hundred persons are expected to participate and which is")
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 11 of the Bill provides a new procedure for notifying the police of an intention to hold a procession. What it does not do, and I have not been able to find this anywhere else, is tell the police or the public what, in fact, is a procession so far as numbers are concerned. The clause limits the requirement to certain types of procession, excluding for example funeral processions although not, perhaps oddly, wedding processions. But numbers are not provided. The effect is that the public will not know how many people are required in a procession to make it obligatory upon them to give this notice. So they will be in difficulty. On the other side, if the police are constantly plagued by people coming to them and saying that they are going to have a procession when it is only going to consist of a dozen people or thereabouts, the police will not find this provision very much to their liking. It seems desirable therefore that some limit should be set below which this obligation would not extend.
We, in our Amendment No. 32, have put it at 100 persons, which seems not unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Amendment No. 32A, uses the same wording but makes it 50 persons. I hold no strong feeling as between 50 and 100. If the Government can show some good reason why it should be the lower number rather than the higher number, we shall think about it.
Another amendment about which, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word, while moving Amendment No. 32, is Amendment No. 33. Clause 11 provides that, where notice is given to the police of an intention to hold a procession, they should be told the time of starting, the proposed route and other matters. If there is to be a number limit of the kind that we are discussing, it seems common sense that the police should also be told the anticipated number of people expected to take part in the procession. One may not know exactly. In many cases, one may have to make a guess. If someone goes to the police saying that it is intended to hold a procession and that 40 people are expected to take part, the police will be able to say that there is no need to give notice of it either under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, or under mine. There must be an advantage to the police in knowing the approximate number that people have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: It is quite unnecessary to put in any numbers here. One may not know before a public procession how many are going to join it. Surely, the words "to hold a public procession" are quite good enough. Those holding a public procession may not know how many—50, 20 or whatever the figure—will be taking part. I should have thought it was unnecessary to put in the numbers.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It gives me great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and once more to disagree with him. That seems to be our constant habit. It does neither of us great deal of harm.
460
As regards the amendment, the requirement for notice at the moment is much too wide. There is no limitation. Any two persons gathered together in the name of whatever it may be might suffice. The aim of requiring notice—perhaps, here, the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—is to avoid serious disturbance and disruption. It should not extend wider than is necessary for that purpose. Apart from other matters, it would burden the police with yet more unnecessary paperwork.
What inspires this amendment is our view that notice should not be required where the number of demonstrators believed likely to attend is less than the number with which the police would find it difficult to cope. It would be most surprising if most police forces could not handle 100 or fewer persons without difficulty. That is the explanation of the proposed amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I have put down my name in support of the amendment. I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, how he would view having to decide under this Bill what is in fact a public procession. The only assistance available from the definition section is one that takes place in a public place. That does not really take matters much further. If one looks up the definition in a dictionary, the first definition that I find is a body of persons going along in an orderly succession. Surely, there must be some limitation on what constitutes a public procession. There must be some limitation when the question of giving notice actually creates a criminal offence.
One cannot criminalise, I should have thought, totally harmless and innocent people who wish to share each other's company in order to celebrate some event or to show their identification with some small cause or other celebration of solidarity and togetherness. Quite apart from protests, these are surely part of the pleasure of ordinary social life. Are you going to ask a local cricket team walking through the village with their cup which they have just won, or ramblers opening a new section of a walk and congregating together, and walking together, to give notice to the police? Are you going to ask a group of handicapped people who have got together to raise some money for a local hospital—four or five or seven of them in their chairs—to give notice to the police if they are to walk through a small town or village?
In the Committee stage of another place the Minister accepted that the definition was inadequate and introduced an amendment, which is now Clause 11 (2), at the Committee stage in order to meet the criticisms which are similar to those now being voiced to this Committee. But there all that is covered are processions which are commonly or customarily held, and the funeral procession. If I may say so without being facetious, the fact that one has to put into an Act of Parliament dealing with public order an exception for a funeral director with a funeral procession, surely highlights the enormous breadth and the stupidity of the breadth of this definition.
An assembly in the following clause is defined as 20 or more people. Here we have in the procession no

461
definition and no limitation at all. I would ask the Minister this. What, for instance, does one do about a sponsored walk which is so fashionable nowadays? What happens on a sponsored walk? Does a sponsored walk have to give notice to the police six days beforehand, and so on? There must surely be some limitation on this definition.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak at this point to Amendment No. 32A, which is an alternative to Amendment No. 32. It is fairly self-explanatory. It represents a compromise between the Government's position and the position of noble Lords who have moved Amendment No. 32, although it is not compromise for the sake of compromise; there are more practical reasons for suggesting a limit of 50. I tear that coping with a procession of as many as 100 people could indeed impose a strain upon police resources. A procession of no more than 50 or thereabouts is very much more manageable.
Many processions of 100, or in excess of 100, are more likely than not in practice to be political, and therefore inherently more likely to be potentially troublesome. The kind of procession which attracts 50 people fewer on the other hand will tend, by and large, to be the kind of non-political procession which aims to demonstrate, for example, against the absence of pedestrian crossings or speed limits in a town or village where a child has been run over by a car or lorry. In other words, those taking part are likely to be more mature both in age and behaviour and therefore less likely to get out of control than the kind of people who go on a purely political demonstration. One must bear in mind the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that in the absence of any such amendment as has been discussed, a procession of as little as two people would be caught by this provision. I therefore hope that the Committee will regard my amendment as a reasonable compromise.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I might intervene before the noble Lord the Minister replies only so that his reply can be complete.
I shall not repeat any of the points that have been so worthily made already. I am not talking now about the difficulties of a court, as was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am talking in terms now of an adviser. With the clause standing as it is, I would not know how to advise any clients as to whether they were under a duty to give notice of a proposed procession. Let us consider a group who told me that they were eccentric people. They knew that their cause was a lost one, and that there were only five of them who were going to march down a little street saying that they wished the church to which they belonged was to take on a certain type of service as against the one that now existed. If they said, "There will be only five of us", I would have to tell them this. "This clause as it left Parliament is so vague, you had better be on the safe side. You had better give notice". This is absolutely absurd from the point of view of bureaucracy, of troubling the police, and troubling human beings.
462
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was in no way in a mocking mood, as he said, when he directed his attention to the funeral director. May I in the spirit of yesterday, and on a more joyous note, refer to a wedding procession and not a funeral procession. Clients have come to me and said, "We are having a very happy event, a wedding in our family. We shall get married in the local church. There will be a procession of cars but quite a few of us are walking together to the church. Could you please tell us whether we have any statutory duty in the way that this Public Order Act left Parliament?"
I must tell noble Lords that I would not have the vaguest idea whether I was giving correct advice if I said, "No, it is a wedding procession and you are walking down the road to the church and"—looking under Clause 1 l(l)(c)—"it is to mark or commemorate an event. There is no doubt about it. You are marking or commemorating an event. This is a wedding in your local village. I am extremely sorry but under Clause 11 of the Bill as it left Parliament it has left you in complete and absolute doubt." There must be some definition. If the Minister cannot accept the question on numbers, would he at least say that what we have to do at Report stage is to come forward with an amendment—it will be a Government amendment I hope—which covers all the matters which have been referred to in this short debate and to make sense of it instead of it being such vague nonsense as at the moment? It is in that spirit that I know the amendments have been moved. It is to get some real definition for citizens to know where they are, and for the police to know where they are, We cannot leave it as it is at present.
Lord Hylton: One can sympathise with the points that have been made about how one defines a procession. One can also sympathise with the intention of my noble friend and the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, in trying to have a de minimis provision to exclude very small events. But the weakness of the amendments as printed lies in the words "are expected". Let us imagine a situation of industrial dispute, or an area in which there has been racial harassment. Somebody may organise a procession intending it to be small but it snowballs, What was intended to be below 100 ends up as 1,000 or any number you like. That is where serious problems are likely to arise in special situations. I do not think therefore that the wording of the amendments is quite adequate.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord who moved this amendment, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his amendment, have explained their purpose. It is to remove the burden of giving advance notice from the organisers of small marches. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, would exempt marches with an expected attendance of less than 100 persons, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as he said, in the form of a compromise, would put the threshold at 50. I assume that in both cases the organisers themselves would be left to estimate the likely numbers involved and either give or not give notice accordingly, whether the march grew as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested it might well do or whether it did not.

463
I have some sympathy with the general idea behind these amendments. The Government recognised in another place that it was certainly not necessary for the police to have advance notice of all processions. Therefore, Clause 11 was substantially recast in order to limit the kinds of processions for which advance notice was required. In this way we excluded processions such as school crocodiles or processions of tourists having the simple aim of getting from point A to point B. However, I am afraid that we cannot accept a further limitation based on numbers, both because that would exclude processions which the police ought to know about and because it would be impossible to operate such a provision in practice. I entirely accept that most small processions will cause little trouble for the police or for the local community, but this is sadly not true of all of them. I understand from the police that small marches are by no means unknown. The police have of course been consulted about numbers, and they are quite firm that they do not want to exclude small processions by means of a numbers threshold. To some extent I believe that takes care of the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin.
So far as the description of a public procession is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, gave one definition. I have to say that the definition which we believe to be the current and accepted one is that a public procession is a moving body of persons, moving along a route. I believe that this was given in the case of Flockhart v. Robertson in 1950 by Lord Chief Justice Goddard. I believe that that is the accepted definition.
The National Front can seldom muster more than a couple of hundred marchers these days. Indeed, a rally they recently held in Liverpool attracted only about 50 people. However, I am sure the House will be aware of the difficulties of the kind which such marches cause and of the need for the police to know about them in advance. The National Front have taken to concealing their plans from the police because of the risk of encountering a ban, and they could quite plausibly claim in relation to many of their marches that they did not reasonably expect more than 50 or a 100 persons to attend. That brings in just the sort of point that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised. Under the terms of these amendments, this could exempt them from the need to give notice; but it is vital that the police should know where the National Front are going to march. In the example I have just give there was a counter-demonstration of more than 400 persons.
I believe that sponsored walks are covered by the fact that individuals walking separately are not a procession under the definition I have given. If they walk as an organised body they will indeed be a procession, but a sponsored walk whose only purpose is fund-raising would not be required to give advance notice. Notice would only be required under Clause 11(l)(a), (b) or (c) if the walk was intended to publicise a campaign or cause of some kind. I do not in fact believe that in general any sponsored walk would be seeking to publicise in that way.
As for a wedding procession which is simply proceeding from the church to the reception, that is
464
not caught by Clause 11. The wedding procession is only caught if the procession is itself celebratory and therefore falls within Clause 1 l(l)(c). So far as I can tell this is true, but similar considerations may apply to other small but difficult groupings. I referred to the National Front just now, but I will also mention the anarchist group Class War and the Stop the City campaign. The following of these groups may not be large, but they have a considerable capacity to cause trouble. The Stop the City campaign has in the past deliberately split into small groups in order to make life more difficult for the police. They think nothing of dividing into separate marches, each pretending to be less than 50 or 100 persons strong, but all converging on a single rallying point where they plan to cause some mischief. This would lead to the handling problems which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, thought the police would be able to handle but which clearly the police would find it extremely difficult to handle. Those groups are not co-operative and do not readily discuss their plans with the police. Hence it is vital that they give notice.
I realise that in the light of yesterday's events what I have just said about wedding processions may not fully cover all the matters of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is shaking his head, and clearly he believes that i am right to say that. I will certainly look at wedding processions, without any commitment, because I should like to examine precisely how they stand. I believe we can find a way forward on that point. I will examine it very closely; but I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given about the more serious aspects of those who split up into smaller bodies and they come together, and the possibility of counter-marches, the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask one question about a recent sponsored walk which received a great deal of publicity and which was undertaken by Mr. Ian Botham from John O'Groats to Land's End? If I remember rightly, that was specifically undertaken to publicise the cause of, and to raise money for, leukaemia patients. Are not many of these sponsored walks for just such a specific purpose?
Lord Glenarthur: They are certainly intended to attract attention; I have no doubt about that. However, I do not think that they necessarily fall within the close definition of Clause ll(l)(a), or indeed (b), if it can possibly be said that leukaemia is a cause or campaign. However, I understand the force of the noble Lord's argument and I will undertake to look at that problem and see whether or not we do in fact meet the point concerning those who wish to take part in sponsored walks and wedding processions. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lords will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: Could the Minister clarify one point? Assume that a small child has been knocked down by a lorry in a village where there is no pedestrian crossing or 30-mile an hour speed limit, and at very short notice angry parents decide spontaneously to assemble at the village post office and walk twenty yards to the

465
main road, where they sit down across that road and hold up traffic for twenty minutes as a protest. How would they fare if there was no amendment along the lines that the other noble Lords and I have suggested?
Lord Glenarthur: I believe that is covered.
Lord Mishcon: It is covered in the third line on page 7.
Lord Glenarthur: The third line on page 7 covers the case where it is not practicable to give advance warning of the procession, and the noble Lord's particular case is covered.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: The more I listen to the noble Lord the Minister the more I feel that this clause as it stands is full of holes and anomalies. The Minister has kindly said that he will think about wedding receptions, and I hope he will also think about sponsored walks and events of that kind which may fall within Clause 11(1)(b). Indeed, there must be other events analogous to those which will be caught by the provisions of the clause as it stands at the moment. If we do not have some form of limitation by numbers, what we are going to have, if we want a clause which is logical on the basis of excluding those who clearly ought not to be within it, is a whole series of exceptions. That would be nonsensical and contrary to what is intended.
I quite agree with the Minister that it is difficult to know where to draw a numerical line. I entirely agree that it happens that people genuinely believe that the procession will not be more than, say, 40 and then they find that others tack themselves on so it becomes more than 50 or more than 100. That is the kind of difficulty which cannot be avoided.
If there was a genuine intention that there should not be more than, say, 40 then under either of the amendments before the Committee there would be no obligation to notify and no breach of the criminal law if there were not notification. However, if a body like the National Front, knowing perfectly well that it was likely to get more than the 50 or 100 marchers, did not notify because it thought that in due course it could persuade the police or the prosecuting authorities that it really did not expect to have more than 40, and then a number of people tacked themselves on to the procession, I do not think that any court would be likely to accept that kind of excuse. Therefore, I believe that that difficulty has been very much overrated. I entirely accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made on it and occasionally it might genuinely happen. That I accept. However, it seems to me that the balance of convenience is to accept that there will occasionally be anomalies of that kind rather than that there should be no limit at all.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon, is, as he said, in a position where he is quite unable to give proper advice—the more so as a result of what the Minister told us: that, certainly as regards the police, they do not want a numerical limit of any kind. If that is the position and if that is to be the approach of the police to non-notification, then my noble friend Lord Mishcon will have to tell his clients that, if they fall
466
within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) when commemorating some event or other, they will have to notify even if there are only four or five of them, because that is what the police think is necessary. Surely that is an absurdity and, therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will take the advice which my noble friend Lord Mishcon gave and come forward at Report with a sensible Government amendment which will cover all these points.
Lord Glenarthur: I accept the difficulties that have arisen on one or two issues. I am not quite sure that the difficulty about the National Front and the figure of 40, which the noble and learned Lord quoted just now, is really valid when one considers that the National Front and perhaps one or two other organisations, such as those which I quoted earlier, are capable of whipping up an enormous amount of opposition, and in so doing they are likely to promote disorder. That surely is another very important point when considering whether or not one ought to apply a number, because it can grow unexpectedly. It is very much the same as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, except that the number is growing not with the crowd that is starting to march, but with these people who are in opposition to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to Mr. Botham's sponsored walk, which attracted an extraordinary variety of people and, from time to time, a pretty considerable crowd. It also provided a pretty serious obstruction to traffic, about which I believe the police should have known in advance, because it would seem perfectly reasonable to suppose that those who would otherwise find themselves in all sorts of difficulties might have been able to be helped if the police had been able to make proper plans. I do not think that just because advance notice is given that means that conditions will be imposed; it is merely that to make the knowledge gained available to those who have to try to steer traffic around the sort of processions which we are talking about—and traffic is only one aspect and no doubt there will be others as well—does not seem to me to be unreasonable. It is only a way of getting discussion going between the police and the organisers so that both can be served in the best possible way.
As I said, I shall of course study in particular the very valid point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised about a procession. There may be more to it than this, especially when one is talking about the military being involved in the way in which they were yesterday. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that, but I believe that there is a statute which deals with it. I shall study that, but, in the light of those two further expressions, I hope that the noble Lord may feel somewhat appeased.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will accept that it goes further than simply weddings and funerals. For example, quite a few Churches process on various occasions, particularly at Whitsun. There are also pilgrimages and processions of that kind, and groups of people who go in procession on Armistice Day. Do all these people have to inform the police that they are going to process? There are quite a few events of that kind going on.
Lord Glenarthur: Armistice Days are covered because, if the noble Baroness looks at subsection (2), she will see that it says:
"where the procession is one commonly or customarily held".
That will cover Armistice Days. I accept that there may be other aspects which suddenly spring to mind. There are difficulties, and that is why I said earlier that I accepted that there was some force in the arguments. However, the difficulty is an apparent difficulty; it is a real difficulty; it is one which the police have to face day by day. We owe it to the police to provide them with the safeguards which they need in order to deal with these difficult processions, especially the ones that split up in the way in which I have described.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I am grateful to the Minister for promising to think about this again, even within the limits that he has indicated. I cannot help feeling that at the end of the day we may find that a numerical limit of some kind is the only practical solution. However, by all means let the Government think about other possibilities. We, for our part, will also think about the very real problem, and no doubt we shall return to it at the next stage.
Lord Mishcon: With the permission of the Committee, which I do not really need but which I think out of courtesy I ought to seek because I have jumped up again, in order that the discussion is complete and as all of us are trying to help and make a sensible clause and not, as I have said, make a sacrifice to bureaucracy and put burdens upon citizens and the police which are inapplicable, perhaps I may give another example that readily springs to mind. It is that of the Salvation Army, which, most likely, will hold its procession every Sunday but not necessarily in a particular area. It may come from another area, and the fact that it happens to be a different branch of the Salvation Army which does not customarily process by way of march in the particular area will bring it outside this exemption.
However, in order to complete the discussion of this matter, and only for that purpose, I want to read again to the Minister the words which he very properly quoted as being an answer to, for example, a Church procession, to which the noble Baroness referred. Let us look and see how very vague these words are:
"Subsection (1)"—
which is the whole of what we are discussing—
"does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held".
If the National Front annually, biennially or whatever holds a procession or march in an area, is it entitled to claim exemption from the provision which obliges it to give notice on the basis that it says that it has been doing this for the last five or six years before the Bill became an Act?—as they have been doing in Brick Lane, as I am reminded by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. This clause must be
468
examined, as the noble Lord the Minister has been gracious enough to say, but I hope that the discussion that we have had this evening will help the Government to come forward with some suggestions to see that the vagueness of this clause and the all-embracing nature of it is relieved before the Bill leaves this House.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble and learned Lord—finally, I rather hope—withdraws his amendment, may I answer the point about Salvation Army marches? Where a march by the army or a particular troop is a regular or customary event, then the exemption should be sufficient.
Lord Mishcon: No.
Lord Glenarthur: May I just finish before the noble Lord completes what he is going to say? A one-off procession called for a particular purpose would not, however, be covered. Clearly, there is a need to exempt common processions of whatever type, of which the police will already be aware. The exemption provision was drawn from a number of precedents in local Acts and from recent Scottish legislation which seem to have worked well in practice. The noble Lord is obviously not convinced, so I think I had better stand where I did earlier and agree to look at it in the same light.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: It is my intention in not more than 30 seconds from now to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps I may first say one word in support of what my noble friend Lord Mishcon said with regard to subsection (2). The provision there is that the exemption applies
"where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held".
In other words, it need not even be over the same route again and again, provided it is within the same police area, or areas, which is a wide exception to the rule and one that could be taken full advantage of by, for example, the National Front. However, the point is well in the Minister's mind now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32A:
Page 6, line 40, after ("procession") insert ("in which not fewer than fifty persons are expected to participate and which is").
The noble Lord said: On the understanding that I reserve the right to return to this matter if the Government do not come forward with a satisfactory amendment of their own at the next stage of the Bill, I do not intend to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 32A not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(c) the traffic commissioner in whose area the procession is to be held: and
(d) the management of each registered bus operator who runs a local bus service on a route along which the procession is to be held.")
The noble Lord said: I am dealing with a very different amendment on this same clause. It is incumbent on me, before I start, to make a few paving remarks. It has been fascinating listening to the speeches on this clause. One has been having a lesson in either etymology or lexicography. In the recess and before we come to the next stage I shall look up "procession" and "demonstration". Sir James Murray, whom we must not forget, began the Oxford English Dictionary in 1878 and got to the letter "P" or the letter "T" in 1915—and it was not finished until 1928—and I think we must always refer to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was talking about sponsored walks, I think slightly with his tongue in his cheek, and I felt his glances in my direction, because I occasionally walk over that area referred to in the territorial part of his title. It is only a sort of pocket handkerchief, a mere few acres. I think he is probably one of a total population of 10 in Lullington, and that is absolutely excellent. But there are walks other than sponsored walks. Other people do it for pure escapism, and they are not sponsored and belong to the Long Distance Walkers Association.
Here, without going beyond the rules of the House, one must pay tribute to the very recently deceased Lord Crawshaw of Aintree who walked 255 miles in 76 hours, and I think must have been the world record holder for this. There are people who do this, and it is not inappropriate to pay tribute to the late noble Lord.
Having said that, I shall now refer to this amendment, which is very different. I have not even done the formalities. I beg to move Amendment No. 34. It is because the organisation of public demonstrations has become a growth industry that Part II is included in the Bill. It is because of the degree of disruption this causes to public transport that I ask for provision to minimise this disruption.
We are all conscious of the number of demonstrations in London, if only because of the frequency with which Parliament is besieged by mass lobbies, but that is only a small part of it. To give another example, which I know well, I shall refer to Brighton. Scarcely a week goes by without a procession or public assembly. Brighton is vulnerable to these processions because the main thoroughfare, Western Road and North Street, which runs parallel to the coast, is most frequently chosen by organisers of processions. Because it is a focal point, 90 per cent. of the local buses also use the route—60 an hour in each direction. Yet other buses have to cross these roads. The processions may be fun for those taking part and for passers-by, but they are frustrating for the people in the buses, who may be delayed for up to 20 minutes while the walking road blocks make their way through.
It is no exaggeraion to say that bus services are thrown into chaos on some occasions. However, when there is advance warning, some rerouting and alteration to bus services can be achieved to the general benefit of the public. Without warning, the bus operators can do nothing. Surely Brighton's 46 million-plus bus passengers are entitled to out consideration.
It is the same all over Britain, but the hope of free media coverage is a great spur to demonstrators to advertise their cause without cost to themselves and without regard to its value to the community as a whole. As I reminded your Lordships at Second Reading, there are in all 6,200 million bus passengers every year and they are particular sufferers from the activities of a minute fraction of this number who become involved in public processions—often just for the fun of it. As was stressed in the White Paper Review of Public Order Law (Cmnd. 9510), it is all a question of balance. Most people agree that the right to demonstrate is a safety valve and is not lightly to be taken away, but we have to find ways of reducing to minimum the inconvenience caused to the great majority.
Again at Second Reading one was at some pains to stress co-operation by the police with others affected by demonstrations. Even so—and it is not always the case—the sooner bus companies receive information regarding a procession on their bus routes, the more they can do to reduce the disruption caused to their passengers.
We take our buses for granted when they run to schedule—the same thing goes for trains—and either complain vociferously or with silent resignation if they do not. Few ever give a thought for the art of the scheduling clerks who make our complex city services possible. Like most things in life, the end product is taken for granted with scant consideration for the complexity lying behind its production. I would assure your Lordships that it is a considerable skill to prepare bus schedules, and this is actually underlined by the problems which occur when just one bit of the schedule goes wrong. When we have a demonstration a large part of the schedule goes wrong and our schedulers must do their best to cobble over the hole left in their network. Staff rotas—which, as the word implies, share the duties regularly between bus crews—have to be reworked; suitable alternative routes have to be established; and connections between different services have to be taken into consideration. The more time there is available to unravel and recreate the schedules, the better it will be for the travelling public.
It is for this reason that I ask that notice should be given at the earliest possible moment to the management of bus operators affected by a procession; otherwise we may face the problem of waiting bus queues themselves becoming riotous assemblies! Perhaps I exaggerate but I think the Committee will
see the point in that remark. Undoubtedly there is advantage in early notification to affected bus operators and it is little to ask that, while notification is given to the police, the same notice should be given to the bus operator. I hope that the Committee will

471
find it is a small requirement when weighed against the interests of 6,200 million people.
At the same time, it is appropriate that this notification should be given to the Traffic Commissioner in whose area the procession takes place. The Traffic Commissioner is the disciplinary body responsible for the proper operation of authorised bus services and many other matters. If there are complaints from members of the public that there has been unreliable operation of the buses, contrary to Section 111 of the Transport Act 1985, the commissioner should know if this has been due to circumstances wholly beyond the control of the operator and caused by a public procession.
I repeat that this is a small but important amendment, intended solely to benefit the greater part of the public and to help them to view with greater sympathy the emotional, but usually unproductive, action of the lesser part.
I seek the support of the Committee, and I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a matter of understandable concern, not least to bus operators whose services can sometimes be severely disrupted by large demonstrations. I am afraid that the Government find considerable difficulty with my noble friend's amendment. We fully acknowledge the need for bus companies to be given advance warning of demonstrations which are likely to disrupt their services, but we do not believe it is necessary to require march organisers to give notices direct to the traffic commissioners or to bus companies to achieve that result. We are, as I think my noble friend will be aware, anxious to keep the advance notice requirement as simple as possible while nevertheless making it effective.
We believe that both these aims can be achieved by requiring an organiser to give notice to the police and relying on the police to contact any other services which are likely to be affected. This would not just be the bus companies, as I believe my noble friend recognises in his second amendment, Amendment No. 53, to which he will come in due course; it could be the local authority, the ambulance service, or the gas, electricity or water boards. To require the march organiser to contact each and every agency which might be affected really would be unduly onerous. But the police are the central agency involved and it is right that they should contact other agencies when the need arises.
My noble friend seems to suggest that on occasion bus companies may not have been given adequate warning, but he does not say whether the police themselves had more information. That is the important point. If necessary, we may need to include in the circular about this Bill a reminder to the police to contact the other services likely to be disrupted by a march—in particular the bus companies. I hope that my noble friend realises that we accept that we may need to do that and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: I shall be very brief, and I shall certainly withdraw my amendment. My noble friend says that if the police had warning of demonstrations, they would pass it on to others. If there were any infringement of that, I should certainly table another amendment. That was my noble friend's second point, to which I shall return. I thank him very much for explaining it. But underlying this point—which I think is going on to my next amendment—I may say that of course, it is all right to demonstrate; and I am sure that many of those who demonstrate have a great point to make. But I believe that they should be aware that others may be inconvenienced. For example, in travelling by public transport, when one has allowed oneself, say, an hour to get from one place to another or perhaps even half an hour, one can find that, totally without warning, the journey time stretches to perhaps two hours because one has to take a most circuitous route because of a demonstration. But I shall not delay the Committee any longer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 19, after ("delivered") insert ("to a police station").
The noble Lord said: Since putting down this amendment, I have had an exchange of letters with the Minister and I no longer need to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gifford: I have held my peace during discussions on the amendment to this clause because I thought it neither proper nor practicable nor principled to tinker about with Clause 11. I find Clause 11, the requirement that a citizen is to give notice to the police if he or she wishes to exercise in a group the right of passing down the highway, to be absolutely repugnant. Unless there are compelling reasons why it is necessary, we should not allow it. I speak as someone who has been involved in organising a great number of marches and demonstrations, some of which, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot might like to know, achieve a lot of points and a lot of purpose. I recall once organising 15 in a week when the dictator of Portugal, Mr. Caetano, visited Britain. His visit was a fiasco; and nine months later he was booted out of office. I do not say that it was because of demonstrations but they certainly underlined the unpopularity of that regime.
There are two main kinds of processions which will be caught by this clause. The first kind is the large, well-organised procession which relies on attracting as many people as possible in order to make it a success. Those processions nearly always are organised in collaboration with the police, and even if they are not the police are in no way disadvantaged if they were not told about the procession because they are advertised in the newspapers and in the political press, which the police clearly study and will continue to study, in order

473
to keep themselves informed on what is going on. I have not heard of any inconvenience caused to the maintenance by the police of order by the absence in the present law of any requirement for notice of that kind of well-planned demonstration which is organised weeks, and sometimes months, in advance.
The second kind of procession is one which is held at short notice in an impromptu way by a smaller gathering of people in order to make their protest or their point about something about which they feel concerned. Sometimes, the reason for such impromptu, short-notice processions will have occurred only very recently; for instance, if there is the death of a popular figure. I recall organising a procession to a foreign embassy after the assassination of the leader of a liberation movement when many people were very grieved and wanted to express that grief. Sometimes the reason for the procession will have been in existence for many weeks but the impetus to organise the procession will have emerged only shortly before it is to take place.
For instance, it may be known that a local authority is to debate a certain issue at a certain time or that a local employer is to make his workforce redundant. But it is only when people come together in a meeting that they decide that they want to make their protests by walking, either there and then or the next day or in three days' time, to the place where this is to take place—to the town hall or to the factory. Sometimes it is a political event. The bombing of Libya was followed about three days later, the next week-end, by a major procession down Oxford Street.
Let us see how the Bill impinges on those kinds of impromptu processions. First of all, the Bill says:
"Written notice shall be given … unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession".
It will nearly always be practicable to give some advance notice even if a demonstration is to be organised, let us say, on the following day. It can be argued, and with force, that it is perfectly practicable to deliver the requisite notice to the police station in the evening of the day upon which the decision is made. Therefore, the occasions on which the requirement for notice can be completely dispensed with are going to be rare.
What form does this notice have to take? It has to be in writing. There is nothing in the Bill which allows the requirement to be dispensed with by, for instance, ringing up the police station. The telephone appears not to have been invented for the purposes of this clause. The notice has to be in writing and it has to stipulate, in accordance with subsection (3), a lot of details. It may be easy for someone who is advised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon to comply with that, but it is not people who are regularly advised by solicitors who want to organise demonstrations. On many occasions they will not know the law and, even if they do, they will not know its detail; and unless there is some overriding reason, why should they be told that they are committing a criminal offence unless they get it right as to the route of the procession, the time of the start, the name and address of the organiser, and so on?
If the provision for notice is not complied with and if no notice is received by the police and they observe,
474
or are told about, a group of people processing down the street, what is then the situation? It is then for the police to decide whether in their view it has been reasonably practicable to give notice. Let us say they take the view, probably on inadequate evidence, that they could have been told about this and therefore it is an illegal procession. The organisers are therefore committing a criminal offence and all those who take part in it—provided they have some knowledge of the lack of notice—will be taken to be aiding and abetting that criminal offence.
The user of the highway, which normally is completely open to those who want to pass down it, will become an illegal user, and although there is no power of arrest for the actual criminal offence specified in the clause there is a power of arrest for obstructing the highway. Obstruction of the highway is caused by any illegal user of the highway, and the police will be within their rights to arrest all the people proceeding down that highway, at any rate if they express the intention of continuing with their march. Therefore the police are in the position of having to decide on those criteria whether or not effectively to ban or to stop a group of people walking down a street.
Do we really want to give that sort of power to the police—the power to judge whether, for instance, the procession in which I took part after the Libyan bombing ought to have been notified to the police because there were one or two days between the bombing and the procession in which that could have been done? I do not believe that we should thrust upon the police that discretion. The judgment that needs to be made is not one we would normally want the police to be making in the course of their important duties.
Of course, if everyone is arrested it is then for the magistrates to decide whether a criminal offence has been committed; and again the issue will have to be argued in a magistrates' court months after the event, by which time the opportunity to express the protest has gone, the impetus has been lost and important freedoms of the citizen will have been interfered with. Of course, if the group that wanted to organise this impromptu protest had decided instead to organise a static protest the group would not have to give notice at all under this Bill because the requirement only affects processions, even though static protests are capable of causing just as much, if not more, obstruction than a moving protest which moves down the highway.
Why is this? We look at the White Paper to find out, and in paragraph 5.4 of the White Paper we find the reasons why it has been thought not to be proper to impose this requirement upon static assemblies, pickets and the like. The Government said this:
"Discussion of an advance notice requirement has made it clear that it would produce much unnecessary work for the police to little purpose. There is no legal definition of a static demonstration: an assembly covers the whole range of public gatherings, from political rallies to religious services and pop festivals to football matches. The Government has considered possible definitions based on the nature of an assembly, or its likely size; but it has not proved possible to devise a definition which restricts the category to those events of interest to the police. An advance notice requirement would therefore inundate the police with notifications of perfectly peaceful meetings. The administrative burden would far outweigh the information gain."
We therefore learn that this requirement is being imposed upon processions, not because there is some

475
overriding necessity for the police to be informed in advance in order to make their dispositions, but because it happens to be in the Government's view not administratively inconvenient for the police to be told about processions, but it is administratively inconvenient to be told about meetings. This is an argument not of principle, but of expediency
I suggest that we regard infringements of basic rights of protest and of freedom to move down the highway as matters of principle. One therefore has then to see whether there is anything about a procession down the street, as opposed to static assembly, which makes it so much more necessary for the police to be informed in advance. I suggest to the Committee that there is not. There is no overriding reason. In fact, if a group of people is seen to be proceeding down the street in a disorderly manner, the police are likely to be told very quickly and to come on the scene. I have certainly organised marches to embassies on this sort of occasion. I have sometimes not bothered to tell the police, because there has not been very much time and there is always a police officer there anyway, because the word has got around. It is usually known that the issue is a serious one and one then liaises on the spot.
What then are the reasons for this clause? The Government will no doubt pray in aid the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I am sorry that he is not in his place tonight. It is true that in the Brixton Report he said that he was persuaded of the need to give notice, and because of the importance of that, which may well be relied on, I should like to quote some words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on an earlier occasion when he reported on the Red Lion Square disorders. He said this of the requirement for notice:
"I do not think the need for it has been established and it does present really insuperable difficulty for the urgently called demonstration. Certainly, the lack of any such requirement played no part in the causation of these disorders, for the police had all the notice they needed. In the few instances where no notification is given, the police have so far experienced no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration is planned. An effective demonstration needs a degree of advance publicity. The police therefore are seldom ignorant of what is planned. I do not therefore recommend this change in the law."
That is why one hoped that the noble and learned Lord would have been here, to see whether we could change his mind back again to the view that he had in 1978. A requirement of this kind comes perilously close to giving the police a power to licence the holding of processions down the highway when one couples this with the power given in the next clause to impose conditions, because that will immediately come into play when notice has been given.
The only point of any substance that has been made in the debate so far is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, about the kind of processions organised by the National Front. We must hesitate long before allowing the actions of an organisation like the National Front to be used as the pretext, or the excuse, for infringing basic liberties which have stood for many centuries to use the highway for public procession. It is, I suggest, a dangerous argument.
I am quite sure that the National Front and other organisations of that kind would wish to make a virtue of not giving notice of the sort of marches to which the
476
noble Lord the Minister referred. They would wish to make a virtue of being accused of holding an illegal march. They will not be deterred by a £400 fine nor coerced in that way into giving notice to the police. Those organisations are exactly the kind of organisations that would defy a law such as this. Therefore this is a serious clause. I oppose it absolutely and that is why I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: One man's freedom for some particular action and its reconciliation from some other man's freedom from that particular action is what government is all about. A point of view which refuses to recognise that reconciliation is necessary is, I think, naive and superficial. That condemnation I would apply to the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I shall vote that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill and I hope that noble Lords will do so too.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: What the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, failed to mention is that advance notice of processions is already required in some 92 local authority areas in Engalnd and Wales, by virtue of local Acts. I have not heard it suggested before that these existing provisions constitute some terrible infringement of civil liberties in the way the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, seems to feel that Clause 11 does. There is also a national advance notice requirement in Scotland, which I understand works well. So there is nothing unprecedented whatsoever about Clause 11. Where advance notice provisions already exist, they have none of the untoward side effects which the noble Lord seems to think would exist if Clause 11 were on the statute book.
The Home Affairs Committee of another place recommended that there should be a national advance notice requirement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton riots also recognised the need for such a provision and the majority of commentators on the Green Paper were in favour. So there is really a great deal of support for the proposal.
The arguments in favour of advance notice were well described by the Select Committee. It should help to encourage discussion between the police and organisers, to agree the ground rules well in advance and reduce the need for the police to exercise more formal powers. It would underline for the organisers their responsibilities for the safety and good behaviour of their supporters. Thirdly, as the Select Committee puts it:
"It is obvious that although the police may come to know of intended marches, additional expense and pressure on a public service might be reduced if a reasonable period of notice and full details as to expected numbers and the like were given. There is an element both absurd and slightly sinister in the police of a democratic country having to resort to chance and intelligence in order to obtain knowledge about matters touching upon their duties to minimise traffic disruption and to preserve the peace".
The Government most certainly agree with that analysis. Of course the vast majority of responsible march organisers already discuss with the police their proposals, and they do so well in advance. Nothing in

477
the Bill will discourage that in any way whatsoever. But there are some who deliberately avoid giving details of their proposed marches. I have already given the example of the National Front which has taken to concealing its plans from the police in order to avoid banning orders. I really do feel that it is a rather astounding suggestion of noble Lords that the National Front or anybody else might defy the law should this particular clause remain part of the Bill. That surely is a rather terrible thing to suggest that anybody should do. The law is the law and must be upheld wherever and whatever it is.
On Tameside some years ago the Troops Out Movement and the National Front both decided to hold marches. Troops Out refused to disclose to the police any information about the route or the time of its march. In the event, the march passed off peacefully, but the police had to deploy much larger numbers of policemen than they would have done with better information. In Staffordshire last year the March for Jobs caused similar problems. No notice was given to the police of the route for the march. In consequence, larger numbers of policemen had to be deployed in order to keep open a number of alternative routes.
No one is in any sense criticising the value that people attach to particular causes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that the police had to deploy large numbers of men because notice had not been given of what was intended to take place, where it was to take place, and in what detail. In neither case would the civil liberties of the organisers have been infringed by giving the police advance notice of their proposed route.
The police will not be in the position of giving permission for a march to be held. I thought from what the noble Lord said that he was under the impression that they would be. That is quite wrong. The elements of Clause 11 are qualified, as the noble Lord himself confessed when towards the end of his speech he referred to the conditions imposed by Clause 12 and the prohibition on public processions in Clause 13, both of which are amply described in the need to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of a community; or intimidation in the case of Clause 12.
If advance notice is not given in accordance with Clause 11, the organisers may be liable to prosecution. But the march itself cannot be stopped. Marches can only be banned under the special procedure in Clause 13, which I have briefly described. Nor is the failure to give advance notice a reason for imposing conditions. This can only happen if one of the four tests in Clause 12 is satisfied. So the advance notice requirement is not a serious infringement of civil liberties. It is no more than a useful regulatory measure designed to encourage discussions between organisers and the police, to their mutual benefit. I should have thought that would give practical effect to the need for balance which was described by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
I am surprised at the suggestion made by the noble Lord that the requirement does not recognise the need to provide an exception for marches arranged at short notice. I thought I had made clear earlier that Clause 11(1) provides for just that. If it is not reasonably
478
practicable to give notice because a march is spontaneous, then none need be given. I do not know how short the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is in arranging the marches which he has organised in the past, or whether he proposes to organise them more shortly in the future—that I cannot tell—but if a march is called at short notice then the organisers need only give such notice as they can reasonably manage in the time available. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the noble Lord opposite to walk into a police station and fill in the form, or whatever, to say precisely what is proposed. Surely that is not too much to ask—and he would have complied with Clause 11.
We have done our best to minimise the impact of the requirement. There is no requirement to give advance notice for the organisers of processions which are commonly or customarily held, and I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I would look at the particular question of weddings. Regular events such as May Day parades, and so on, will be exempt. We amended the clause in another place to enable the organisers to give advance notice by post rather than have to take it by hand to the police station. As I said, for the march organised at short notice the obligation is only to give such notice as is reasonably practicable.
In the light of all this I find it difficult to accept that Clause 11 is in any sense a serious infringement of civil liberty or represents any threat to peaceful and lawful marches. It is a useful regulatory measure designed to encourage early discussions between organisers and the police to the benefit of both. On that basis I hope that your Lordships will agree that Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.