Lords Sitting of 5 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Airport Runway Capacity in South
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 action they propose to take following the demand for more runway space in the South of England following the statement made by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend proposes no immediate action. He is satisfied that the pattern of airport capacity provision in the South of England set out in the 1985 White Paper Airports Policy should be sufficient until at least 1995.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does that reply mean that the Government are contemplating no action at all? It did not seem to be a' direct answer to the Question. If it does mean that, may I ask the Government why they are so adamant in refusing to consider any additional runway capacity in the South of England? Is the noble Lord aware that the immediate past president of the CAA, Sir John Dent, and the present one, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, have both said that there will be a necessity for this? Do the Government take no account of chairmen of the Civil Aviation Authority in matters affecting civil aviation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the contrary my right honourable friend naturally pays close attention to the observations made by both Mr. Tugendhat and his predecessor as chairman of the CAA. If the CAA considers that additional airport capacity is needed, then the authority will formally so recommend to my right honourable friend as it is required to do so under Section 16(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. My right honourable friend has not yet received any such recommendation from the CAA but if he does, then he will, of course, give it most careful consideration.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am most grateful for that last grain of comfort? We might at least move a little further. But may I ask the Minister one further question? Does he recall that some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked the Government—and here I refer to Gatwick—whether they knew of any airport in the world which put through 25 million people on a single runway, and do the Government still think that that is a safe and advisable thing to do?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have details of the figures which the noble Baroness gives me as to whether Gatwick is the busiest airport with a single runway. But, in the 1985 White Paper, the Government re-affirmed that a second main runway should not be built, and the key reason for that was environmental.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, given my noble friend's first Answer—that the capacity is adequate only until 1995—and given the time which, as he knows, is required from the initiation of an airport scheme to the opening of the airport, is it not high time, whatever recommendations the Government were to receive from elsewhere, that the Government themselves were taking decisions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in my original Answer I said "until at least 1995". However, as I said in my second answer to the noble Baroness, if the CAA considers that additional airport capacity is needed, then it has the powers to recommend that to my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that he said the reason for not building a second runway at Gatwick was environmental? When he considers questions of environment, will he not realise that a second runway at Gatwick might do something to relieve the very severe pressure that there is upon Heathrow, with its noticeable impact upon those who happen to live under the flight path? Will he not agree that the environmental pressure on people living under the flight path is so great that, if environmental considerations count, this must lead to the construction of a second runway at Gatwick?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already stated the Government's position as regards the second runway at Gatwick. So far as Heathrow is concerned, there have been improvements over recent years due to the fact that aircraft are now quieter than they used to be. The review of night restrictions on flying is still going on at the moment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to remember that there are many runways in the North which are inadequately used, and that this is of no small consequence to the economic development of the North of England and of Scotland?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble frend is quite right. Of course, the Question refers to the South-East of England, but during the last few years there has been a very large increase in the usage of airports in the North of England, and particularly Manchester when not on strike. Certainly, it has been a great success story.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that it is now, I think, accepted by the majority that it was a mistake to give way to the lobbyists of the county of Surrey and to restrict the runway capacity at Gatwick, is it not absolutely unforgivable to restrict Stansted to one runway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the report which was produced in the White Paper of 1985, it was recommended by the inspector that the second runway at Gatwick should not be built and the Government stand by that decision.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I know that, but I asked whether, in the light of experience there, it is not an unforgiveable error to restrict the runway capacity at Stansted to one runway.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to correct something he said a minute or two ago about the strike at Manchester airport. He implied that the staff of the airport were on strike. In fact, I understand that it is the fire services which are on strike there, and it was perhaps an unfortunate reference to the people who work at Manchester airport who would like to see aircraft going through.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I gave that impression I certainly did not mean to. I said that there was a strike at Manchester airport. I attributed no blame to one side or the other as to who was responsible for it. But it is unfortunately hampering the development of what is a very successful airport indeed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have undertaken that they will not increase Stansted beyond 8 million passengers per annum up to a possible 18 million without parliamentary action on the matter, and that the runway at Stansted could, regrettably, take 25 million passengers per annum? Before any additional runway capacity is provided in the South-East, can the Minister assure the House that the widest consultation and consideration will be given to airports elsewhere in the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite right when he said that the first phase at Stansted will be restricted to no more than 8 million passengers per year, and that this will be done by means of an air transport movement limit imposed by order on affirmative resolution. Any further increase to, say, 15 million in the second phase, will also be subject to parliamentary approval. So I think there is plenty of opportunity for those concerned to make their feelings felt.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, on a point of clarification of what the Minister has said (because it is important), did I understand him correctly to tell the House that in connection with the laying down of any runways anywhere in the country, and not just in the South-East of England—though I mentioned the South—the primary condition would be environmental? Are we to understand from that that the environmental lobby has precedence over that of the aviation industry or anything else in connection with civil aviation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. That is not what I said. I was answering the noble Baroness specifically on the question of a second runway at Gatwick, when I said that environmental considerations had ruled that out.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I am sorry, my Lords. Is the noble Lord aware that when he refers to Hansard he will see that he said what I said he said? Perhaps he will write to me and give me an answer on it? May I have an answer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course, I will write to the noble Baroness. We shall just have to wait and see what Hansard says. But I was answering the noble Baroness's question about a second runway at Gatwick.

Hereditary Peerages: Female Descent
3.9 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the recent revival of creations of hereditary Peerages, they will take steps to enable hereditary Peerages created in future to descend to females, and to provide that the eldest child of whatever sex will inherit.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government have no present plans to extend the Act to this area or to take other steps to change the system.Lord Diamond: My Lords, is that not a very unsatisfactory Answer for the House of Lords to accept? How can the noble Earl possibly justify a continuation of the present practice which so blatantly discriminates against women when we all recently spent a good deal of time tightening up the law on sex discrimination and when the early Baronies by Writ and some Scottish Peerages already allow for succession by women where there is no male heir? Also, we enjoy a situation in which Her Majesty is not only our Queen but is accepted as such by hundreds of thousands of people of all sorts of creeds, colours and customs as Head of the Commonwealth.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, notwithstanding the recent strengthening of the law, there are still a number of areas where discrimination on grounds of sex is not illegal. Some of that discrimination disadvantages men and some disadvantages women. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, the Government are not aware that there is a great deal of concern on this matter or that it causes great difficulty.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, surely the exceptions to which the noble Earl refers where sexual discrimination is still allowed are all allowed under the Act. Will he tell us under what section of the Sex Discrimination Act this form of discrimination is permitted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not affect the present system of inherited Peerages.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, not slightly misconceived? If we were to follow the idea to its logical conclusion, we should be altering the succession to the Crown. Does the Minister agree that if people give something to somebody with a certain line of gift afterwards, that should be adhered to in later life?
Lord Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I was happy to bow to the noble Baroness and to the Premier Baron. Having done so, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in the case of the Portal and the Mountbatten Peerages a daughter was enabled to succeed by special remainder? Is this not a precedent which could be followed for future creations where there is no male heir?
The Earl of Caithness: Possibly, my Lords.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in view of the mistake made by my llth great—grandfather 500 years ago in changing the system from heirs general to heirs male, and in view of the very different ideas of today, is his act not an excellent precedent for putting the matter right now and allowing the ladies to have what they should have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, speaking entirely personally, no, because I should not be here!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that in this House a short while ago and under the stewardship of Lord Chancellor we passed legislation to see that those who are born out of wedlock should suffer no disadvantage at law? If he succumbs to the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will he kindly have that aspect in mind?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am even more tempted not to succumb to the noble Lord's blandishments.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have both daughters and sons and they have quite enough to argue about already?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Earl should give way to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would he not at the same time think it proper to introduce legislation that would lay down that the possession of an hereditary Peerage does not connote the right to sit in this Chamber?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, while I perfectly obviously—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I apologise to those who still wish to enter this discussion, but I feel that it has gone on long enough. I think the House feels that we have had an amusing time over this Question. However, I believe your Lordships will wish to pass on to other business.

Prison Overcrowding
3.15 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 action they are taking to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our major prison building programme will yield a further 17,200 places in new and expanded prisons by the mid-1990's. We are making better use of the existing prison estate, where necessary by changing the functions of establishments, to match changes which have occurred and are projected to occur in the nature of the prison population.
We are continuing to encourage the use of non-custodial sentences for persons convicted of less serious offences. We are also working to improve the flow of cases through the courts so as to stem the increase in the proportion of prisoners on remand.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that considerable Answer. May I ask him for further information about the existing plans for alternative to custody and how they are being utilised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are fortunate in this country to have open to the judiciary perhaps the greatest range of non—custodial sentences available anywhere. These have been taken up in a number of ways. For instance, community service orders have gone up from 10,277 to 33,800. Over the same time-scale, probation orders have gone up from 23,000 to 37,200. So full use is being made of those alternatives.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister will know that one of the most serious aspects of overcrowding in prisons today is the large number of people in prison who are on remand in custody. The Minister did mention that matter. However, I should like to know what he intends to do to try and reduce the appalling proportion of those who have not yet been tried but who are in prison.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are trying to improve the situation as regards speed of trials. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made the position considerably better by the creation of further courts and additional members of the judiciary. Whether or not a person is remanded in custody of course depends upon the case.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, since the prison building programme seems likely to be

329
insufficient, will the noble Earl consider the possibility of prison-capping, so that when the number of inmates reaches a certain figure his right honourable friend can use his executive privilege to release inmates in appropriate categories in order to keep numbers down to an acceptable maximum? Is the noble Earl aware that this practice is carried out in at least one state in the United States of America and that its use was recently threatened by the French Minister of Justice?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difficulty with the proposal of the right reverand Prelate is to get any agreement as to what the right level for a prison population is, and whether it is right for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or for any Home Secretary to turn to a judge and say, "There is no room for these people in prison", or, "I cannot release that number of people". It has been tried, as the right reverend Prelate says, in various countries. For that reason, two-thirds of the convicted prisoners in Holland are still awaiting their time in prison.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is it not a fact that many reports over the past decade bearing on the growing crisis in prisons have advocated shorter maxima for prison sentences for non-violent offences? Is the noble Earl aware that I can think of no report which has not been constant in advocating that course? Is he further aware that two fairly recent surveys of public opinion, one commissioned by the Home Office and the other commissioned by the Prison Reform Trust, have shown clearly that the public would favour shorter maximum sentences for non-violent offenders? Given the fact that the great majority of prisoners now in our prisons are serving sentences for non-violent offences, is there not a case for early legislation to deal with the problem in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe it is absolutely right, and in fact it is the duty of Parliament, to provide a variety of non-custodial sentences, as well as the option of a prison sentence. It is up to the independent judiciary to determine what sentence is appropriate.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give the percentage of persons remanded in custody who are subsequently found not guilty?
The Earl of Caithness: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the most cost-effective and humane sentence is that which bears the least likelihood of causing the person to re-offend and to be recommited to prison? In that context, will he tell us what priority is given by his department to the treatment known as intermediate treatment, which has the lowest re-offending record of any of the treatments of which I am aware? Will he give priority to it and in particular look at the work being done by Mountbatten training at Gyde House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in stating that the Government's policy is to reduce the level of crime and the number of those who re-offend once they have been convicted.
330
We are giving the area of intermediate treatment substantial sums of money and we wish to encourage it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman whether he will encourage more treatment centres such as Phoenix House for drug abusers and for alcoholics, and also whether he will encourage more meaningful deterrents in cases of rape so that people do not do this?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are seeking various methods of funding to encourage treatments for alcoholism and drug abuse both outside and within prison. With regard to the second question of my noble kinswoman, the matter of sentences is of course up to the judiciary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the question of remands in custody, is the noble Earl aware that while in office the predecessor of the present Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, announced in an article in The Times that as a result of the steps he had taken there would be no further need to remand prisoners in police custody? Is he further aware that in a Written Answer which he gave me at the end of last year he indicated that more than 200 prisoners a week on average were being kept in police custody? What steps are the Government taking to honour Mr. Brittan's promise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the time that the then Home Secretary made that statement he was absolutely right to say what he did. Unfortunately, the prediction of future trends in the prison population has proved a very difficult task to carry out with any accuracy, and the prison population has increased far more dramatically than he predicted. The way to overcome this problem is, first, to improve the regimes within prison so that there is a greater flexibility for accepting prisoners who are sentenced or remanded in custody late on in the afternoon; and, secondly, to improve the prison building programme, which should have been started before the Government came to office.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has a crisis on his hands just as serious as that which has exploded in Scotland over recent weeks? Does he agree that the centre of this crisis, as has already been suggested, is the enormous increase in the percentage of men and women being remanded to local prisons by the courts? Is he aware that there are today more than 7,000 such people banged up in cells without sanitation for 23 hours a day? What emergency measures does he have to prevent the prison officers and the prisoners deciding to say, as they will soon, enough is enough?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points which would take a great deal of time to answer. It is wise to point out to the House that as a percentage the level of overcrowding is the same today as it was in 1970. It is a problem that has remained with us. Where we have failed in the past is in providing adequate resources to build new prisons. This is what the Government are doing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is great public apprehension about the diversity of policies throughout the various courts in the land on the whole question of sentencing? Will he bear in mind the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about non-violent crimes and the points that have been made about remand? In view of the serious situation, does he think that there is room for an inquiry to be held jointly between his department and, if appropriate, the Lord Chancellor's department to see whether there can be some adequate recommendations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the Bail Act and bail hostels, a number of options are available to the judiciary. It is part of our programme to continue to bring them to the attention of the judiciary but at the end of the day it is up to the judiciary and not the executive to decide on each case.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, with further reference to the question of the noble Lord on the Liberal Banches who referred to remand prisoners being put into local prisons, is the noble Earl aware that in the greater London area where I live prisoners on remand are being placed in local police stations in completely unsatisfactory circumstances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we deplore the fact that some people on remand are kept in police cells overnight. As I explained in an earlier answer, this is what we want to get rid of by building more prisons.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the change in the rules of bail has increased or reduced the number of prisoners on remand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there was a substantial reduction in the number of prisoners as a result of the Bail Act but unfortunately the number of those on remand has increased. It is the increase in the numbers on remand rather than the number of sentenced prisoners that has posed the problems of overcrowding that we have today.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the noble Earl once again but, with respect, he did not answer my question. Following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should like to put it to him again. Does he agree that in the long-standing and growing crisis in our prisons there is an urgent case for bringing in further legislation to lower the maxima for prison sentences for most categories of non-violent offenders?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think it is wise on each case for the judiciary to have an option of sentences. It is up to the judge, having heard the full details of the case, to make up his mind what the appropriate sentence should be. But we do not hesitate to draw to the attention of the judiciary the range of non-custodial options, should they be appropriate.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, as part of the process which the noble Earl described, can he tell the House whether the Government have yet given
332
consideration to the recent working party report of NACRO which recommended fewer prison sentences for social security offences?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have given consideration and are continuing to give consideration to that report. I believe that a Motion for a debate is down on the Order Paper but the date has not yet been fixed.

Public Records: Publication
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria were used to determine which 1956 official papers should not be made publicly available under the 30-year rule and which impartial authority was asked for advice.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone): My Lords, the criteria were those set out in Cmnd. Paper 8531, paragraphs 26 to 28 inclusive. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the Lord Chancellor adopted the procedure described in paragraph 40 of the same paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the matter of national security cannot apply to those papers that were not published on 1st January? As the papers published have revealed that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the time both lied to Parliament and that the British Government colluded with Israel and France, national security cannot be used as an excuse for not publishing the large number of papers which I understand were suppressed on 1st January. As regards the second part of the Question, the noble and learned Lord told me on 14th January that where papers concerned him personally consultation was taken with an impartial third authority. Can he tell the House who was the impartial third authority?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, certainly: but I recommend that he reads paragraph 40 of the paper. As regards the first part, I think the noble Lord has strayed a little far from his original Question on what were the criteria adopted in relation to those papers. He will know that security is only one of at least three groups of criteria.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that I was on his advisory council for nine years and that even before he makes a decision he is advised by many erudite people, much more erudite than myself. There are three main criteria. Only very selective documents are considered for further closure. Will my noble and learned friend agree that the present system, which has been working for a very long time, is extremely satisfactory?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I should like to thank him for the

333
work he is doing on the advisory council. It is a very important public service. I am grateful to him for his question and the answer is, yes.
Lord Denning: My Lords, as I was chairman of that advisory council for about 20 years, may I suggest that we did our work, applied the right criteria and were independent of any government influence whatever? We had valuable assistance on all sides.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will acknowledge that my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches is wholly independent of government.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his somewhat Delphic initial answer, on the assumption that we are very familiar with the details that are implicit in the documents referred to, can he say whether the minutes of Cabinet meetings in 1956 were disclosed to the public in the recent releases?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my recollection is that they were all set out at great length in Robert Rhodes James's biography of Anthony Eden.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree with me that the reduction from 50 years to 30 years for the closure of documents was made in the interests of historians? There is no discontent in that profession. It was never thought that the reduction was to enable people to make party policital points in either House of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would certainly have saved me a certain amount of embarrassment today and a week ago.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that in view of the disclosures that were made by those papers published on 1st January, and the additional fact that it is well known that a large number of papers were not published, there is a danger that suspicion will grow, and is growing, among the public in this country that the truth is not being told, at least not until too late? When one relates the disclosures made about the events of 1956 to occasions like the conduct of the Falkland war, the Westland affair and now Zircon, there is a great danger that the public will lose, and is losing, confidence in the veracity of government spokesmen in both Houses.
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords, and I do not think that the noble Lord should encourage any apprehension of that kind.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after four o'clock this afternon, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the house, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on private rented housing.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed.

Debtors (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Time to pay directions]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 1. I have to point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 36.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 4, which, in a sense, is consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore to the Bill the provisions on the lines that the Scottish Law Commission recommended. This clause allows time to pay directions to be made by the court when granting decree. Various government and local government types of debt are excluded in the Bill—Inland Revenue, rates, and various Customs and Excise matters.
At paragraph 3.12 of the first volume of its report the Law Commission recommend that there should be the power for the court to make what is, in effect, an instalment decree for such debts. The report states:
"Consistently with these recommendations"
there are various other recommendations about imprisonment for debt—
"and the recommendation made below [we recommend] that time to pay orders should apply to rates and tax arrears being recovered by summary warrant".
It is to restore that aspect that I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I looked very closely at this particular amendment and I readily accept that the Scottish Law Commission has recommended the course that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggests. However, I am somewhat baffled about the contents. We are talking about Crown debts. In particular I am concerned about the regulations regarding VAT.
As someone with a layman's experience of paying VAT at the time when VAT was brought in, I have always understood that we are unpaid tax collectors or agents. If we are agents, are we entitled to follow the

335
course suggested by the noble Lord opposite? It seems to me that the money which is passing through our hands as VAT is not our own money. We are merely acting as agents for the Government. That is my first point and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Secondly, on Second Reading there was some discussion about the future of rates, the community charge, and so on. I wonder whether the arrangements which Scottish local authorities have at present for the payment of rates by instalments do not meet the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is making about how to deal reasonably with the payment of rates: albeit that those who are not very well off will get rate rebates. Those were two points that struck me particularly, and that is why I have very great reservations about the acceptance of this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As he explained, in this amendment the noble Lord opposite is attempting to remove an exemption for rates and certain tax debts from the time to pay arrangements. I hasten to add that the amendment does not remove the exemption for summary warrants, so it will apply only to ordinary court actions for the debts concerned. That is an important point to bear in mind.
When deciding to make the exemption for rates and certain tax debts I had in mind certain considerations which are mentioned by the Scottish Law Commission in their report, particularly in paragraph 355. Those considerations are that rates and tax defaulters tend to withhold payment long after they would pay ordinary debts, and also tend to be better off than ordinary debtors; and furthermore that rates and tax collectors are involuntary creditors, in that they are collecting agents in a real sense. I think that that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Sanderson. For instance, as regards VAT, the Committee will recollect the discussions that took place about Crown preference during debates on the insolvency legislation that went through this Chamber two sessions ago. At that time I do not think that there was any doubt—indeed it was accepted by the Scottish Law Commission and in the Cork report—that so far as concerns certain taxes the individual debtor was merely acting as a collecting agent and had no right to the money that he had failed to pass on. In those circumstances one asks for the reasons why he should be given any further extension of time to meet his commitment as a debtor.
Another point to which my noble friend has made reference in regard to rates is that local authorities already have provision for payment of rates by instalments. I understand that they also have recovery procedures for unpaid rates which can allow considerable periods of time for their payment. That again is a matter which I had in mind.
So far as revenue payments are concerned, and PAYE in particular, employers make deductions from the salary of the person who is in fact the revenue payer. Again, the employer is standing in as a collecting agent in a sense.
As regards the individual taxpayer who accounts directly to the revenue departments, the revenue
336
departments allow payment of tax arrears by instalments in cases of genuine hardship. However—and this point is important when one has in mind the whole system of tax collection—the debtor usually has a continuing liability to pay, and indeed instalment arrangements for arrears may disrupt or interfere with the future round of payments. By the same token the revenue departments also have existing recovery procedures which produce lengthy delays between default and eventual payment—that is to say, they are prepared to wait a reasonable time for arrangements for payment to be made.
Having regard to all these matters, I took the view that further time to pay arrangements were neither necessary nor appropriate for debts of the nature set out in subsection (5) and covered by this amendment—namely, subsections (d), (e), and (1)—for debts due to the Inland Revenue, to a rating authority or to Customs and Excise, in relation to the three duties or taxes due thereunder.
I appreciate that in this Bill the noble Lord may be subjecting the status of the Crown as creditor to the same scrutiny that was paid to it during the passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act of that same year. However, I do not feel that the considerations which rightly exercised this assembly when examining preferential debts in sequestration apply to time to pay arrangements in this Bill. In those Acts we were dealing with the question of personal bankruptcy or insolvency.
Any privilege, if that is what it is, which is granted to the Crown is not directly at the expense of other creditors. That was an important point made in those debates. Nor, for reasons that I have already given, does it harm the legitimate interests of debtors. Secondly, the continuing liability inherent in rates and taxes is not particularly relevent in sequestration but it is of considerable practical significance in time to pay arrangements. Finally, the Committee may recall that "collecting agent" debts, for instance Pay as You Earn, VAT and National Insurance, were regarded as different from ordinary debts in important respects and so were deserving of special treatment.
I hope that with all those reasons I shall have persuaded the noble Lord opposite that in the circumstances it may be better to withdraw his amendment. I must, of course, make it clear to him that I cannot accept it.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. How can a debt be due in respect of car tax? One does not receive one's licence until the money has been paid, so the money can never be due, surely?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not think that the subsection concerns vehicle licences. It is dealing with a specific form of tax that is due, as I recollect it, on new cars. If I am wrong about this matter I shall certainly write to my noble friend, but I am quite clear that it does not refer to vehicle excise licences, which I think is the point to which he is referring.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It was interesting to hear something which I do not think the Committee has

337
heard before; namely, the reasons of the Government for leaving out this recommendation of the Law Commission. Of course, the Law Commission had considered these factors and come to a different conclusion. The factors mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would be considered by the sheriff or the court in deciding whether to make an instalment order. There might well be circumstances in which they considered that they should not do so and of course they have the power not to make an instalment order. It is a matter of discretion only. I should like to study what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("action") to ("for") in line 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to certain other amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 5, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87 and 96. The amendment that I now move is one of a number of amendments which at first sight may seem to be substantial but which do not make any appreciable change to the provisions of the Bill. Their purpose is simply to take account of the fact that the concept of a "proper officer" which appears at present in the Bill does not fit readily into the collection procedures for car tax and VAT. The amendments quite simply delete references to "proper officer" and substitute references to "the Commissioners". They are, of course, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and there are therefore certain consequential changes which are necessary and the amendments also provide for these.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the main consequential amendment which is in Schedule 4 relating both to a new paragraph (7) and a new paragraph (9) which deal with the provision of regulations to enable an officer to carry out the functions of the commissioners. This is necessary because without such a power of delegation all these summary warrant procedures would require to be carried out by the commissioners themselves. It does not require much imagination to see that that would be an impossible task.
To ensure, however, that summary warrant applications and any diligence—that is to say, legal step which follows—are dealt with at a sufficiently senior level, the regulations are allowed to specify that the officer concerned must hold a certain rank. This continues the current practice that summary warants are dealt with only by officers of a certain rank or above which is required in existing regulations. I therefore commend this amendment and the consequential ones to the Committee and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("(9) The sheriff clerk shall if requested by the debtor advise him if interest is payable on the debt and of the method of calculating such interest.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very minor matter in one sense, but in another sense it is fairly important. The intention behind this amendment is to make sure that the debtor who is asking for a payment by instalments or a time to pay direction should be aware of the consequences of what he may have to pay by way of interest. This might well mean that if he were aware of it he would make a different offer and perhaps try to make the payment rather more quickly. It is because it is felt, particularly by the Scottish Consumer Council, that debtors are often unaware of the consequences of interest and expenses mounting up that it is thought—and I would suggest it is proper—that the sheriff clerk should have a duty to explain this matter. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I should like to say from these Benches that I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will accept this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: In indicating that I do not think it is necessary to have this amendment and that I cannot accept it for the reason upon which I will now expand, I must ask the Committee to have regard to subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1. Interest is always payable on court decrees for payment of a principal sum of money, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Lord opposite are fully aware. But under the Bill it may only be recovered under a time to pay direction if the creditor claims it in accordance with subsection (7) of Clause 1. That is to say, the creditor must claim it before a prescribed date and he must specify the amount claimed. He must serve notice of that on the debtor so that the debtor is fully appraised of what the creditor's claim is under a time to pay direction.
It is right that the Scottish Law Commission devised this provision to remedy a defect in the current summary cause instalment decree where there is no duty on creditors to intimate a claim for interest in time to ensure that the interest can be paid by the specified intalments. Interest on court decrees runs on the amount due under the decree until it is paid in full. I am certain that both noble Lords are fully aware of that.
Accordingly, it seems to me that since the Bill specifically provides for intimation of the very information which the noble Lord opposite seeks, it could be said that this amendment is totally unnecessary. It may be misleading for the simple fact beyond others that the court which grants the decree is not necessarily the sheriff court but may include the court of session. In those circumstances, the sheriff clerk would have no advice whatsoever to offer to the debtor.
I can appreciate the point which the noble Lord opposite was making and I think it is very valid. But it is already covered in the Bill in a much more satisfactory way because the debtor can assume, if he does not get notice, that no interest is being claimed by the creditor in the time to pay direction. Were there to be something of this kind with the debtor going to a sheriff, he might do that before notice was served and be wholly confused. That must be one of the things which we wish to make certain does not arise in this legislation. For those reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: Some debtors will not have read this Bill. Is it not possible that this would be useful? The noble and learned Lord is not saying that they cannot consult the sheriff clerk. All he is saying that it is not a statutory right. Is that correct?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: That is exactly what I am saying, yes.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Then I think the best thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Time to pay orders]:
Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 25, leave out from ("debt") to ("including") in line 26.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disposal of application]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) After the sheriff has heard parties he may make a time to pay order either in the terms offered by the debtor or in such other terms as he considers appropriate having due regard to the financial and personal circumstances of the debtor or he may refuse to make a time to pay order.")
The noble Lord said: No doubt I shall be told by the noble and learned Lord opposite that this amendment is unnecessary, but the Bill as drafted appears to reach a situation where if the debtor and creditor do not agree, the debtor having made an offer of instalments and the creditor not agreeing, the sheriff then has to make up his mind. But as the Bill is drafted, it appears that he had to make up his mind either to accept or reject the debtor's offer.
The amendment seeks to make it clear, as trust is the intention, that the sheriff should have an opportunity to make an order for a different instalment than that offered by the debtor and is not restricted either to accepting the debtor's offer and making that instalment or making no order for instalments at all. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. I understand his saying that this needs to go in so that a different order might be contemplated, but it seems to me to say in the legislation that a time to pay order would require one to take account of the financial circumstances is extraordinary. Anything that was done at any time by such an order would have to take account of the financial circumstances. That is what "time to pay" means.
340
As to the personal circumstances, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what personal circumstances he means. If it is something to do with whether or not the person is employed, the salient point is what he is earning. Those are the financial circumstances. Surely personal details other than financial circumstances are not relevant to this matter.
4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I must apologise to the Committee. Something has gone wrong with the amendment that I intended to be Amendment No. 6. The best course is for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and come back at a later stage with the amendment that I meant to put in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
General provision.
("PART IA
DEBT ARRANGEMENT SCHEMES
Nature, content and effect of schemes
—(1) A scheme (to be known as a "debt arrangement scheme") providing for the orderly and regular payment of the debts of a debtor who is an individual may be made, on application being made therefore to the sheriff, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(2) A debt arrangement scheme may provide—

(a) for an extension of time for the payment of the debts, whether by instalments or otherwise;

(b) for discharge of the debts on payment only to the extent of a composition; or

(c) both for such an extension of time and for discharge on payment only to the extent of a composition.

(3) A scheme which provides for—

(a) an extension of time for the payment of the debts, shall specify a period within which the payments shall be made, being a period not exceeding 3 years after the date when the scheme comes into force;

(b) payment only to the extent of a composition shall state—

(i) the proportion of the amount of each creditor's debt; and

(ii) the total amount,

to be paid under the scheme:
Provided that this paragraph shall have effect in relation to a debt which is included in the scheme on its variation under section 28(1) of this Act as if after the words "under the scheme" there were added the words "and under a decree granted under section 31(6)(a) of this Act.".
(4) Every scheme shall provide that all sums to be paid thereunder shall be payable to a person appointed under this Part of this Act (to be known as the "administrator") and, subject to sections 36(6)(a)(i) and 37(2) of this Act, shall thereafter be disbursed by him to the creditors whose debts are included in the scheme; and the scheme shall regulate the method and times for the making of such payments to the administrator and for such disbursement by him.
(5) A scheme may include a provision (subject to such conditions as may be specified in the scheme) that the debtor shall, within a period specified in the scheme—

(a) pay such funds to the administrator as may be so specified;

(b) dispose of such assets (not being articles of moveable property exempt from diligence) as may be so specified and pay the net proceeds of such disposal to the administrator for disbursement to the creditors in accordance with the scheme.

(6) A scheme may include a condition that the debtor shall not be entitled, while the scheme is in force, to obtain credit exceeding an amount or amounts specified in the condition:

341
Provided that—

(a) no condition so included shall restrict the obtaining of credit by the debtor for the purpose of paying—

(i) rent; or

(ii) debts incurred in obtaining the supply of fuel or energy, for his residence,

(b) the scheme may exempt from the condition the obtaining of credit for the purposes of paying for such goods or services as may be specified in the condition.

(7) Every scheme shall include a statement that an order may be made under section 25(1) of this Act.
(8) It shall only be competent to include in a scheme debts for the payment of which the debtor is personally liable.
(9) A scheme shall come into force on the date on which an order under section 24 of this Act confirming the scheme takes effect and shall cease to have effect on the death of the debtor or as provided in section 32()1) of this Act.
(10) A scheme may be made only on an application by the debtor and the debtor may withdraw his application at any time before confirmation of the scheme under section 24 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may with the leave of the Committee speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 35 inclusive. The intention of this amendment is to insert into the Bill the debt arrangements scheme provisions recommended by the Scottish Law Commission. In putting forward the amendment, I have taken the wording as it was drafted by the Scottish Law Commission in its draft Bill. I fully realise that if the amendment is accepted, as I trust it will be, numerous alterations will be required on Report to take account of the slightly different cross-references that will be required, as the Government have made certain changes in other place from the Law Commission's draft Bill. The Committee may be prepared to consider this matter in principle, so to speak, rather than deal with the detailed drafting errors that no doubt exist and are of course my responsibility.
It is clear from the Law Commission's Report that it regarded the debt arrangement scheme as an important, if not crucial, part of its proposals for reform. It is unfortunate that the Government have not accepted that part of the recommendation. The debt arrangement scheme is supported by the Scottish Law Society and the Scottish Consumer Council.
A debt arrangement scheme would be new in Scotland, but as the Law Commission points out in paragraph 4.31, it is a common provision in other countries where the law is on a similar basis to that of Scotland. It has been available in England since 1883 under the scope and name of an administration order.
The Cork Report in connection with England and Wales said (it is quoted at paragraph 4.32):
"no doubt that the most urgent need of all is for the introduction of a simple, accessible and inexpensive procedure for dealing with the ordinary consumer debtor, whose conduct does not require investigation, and who has no significant realisable assets, but who has a reasonable prospect of being able to discharge all or part of his liabilities out of future earnings".
As I understand it, it was the Law Commission's view that the debt arrangement scheme was necessary and proper. One frequently had a situation where people were in debt, they were in work or had an income, and although their assets at any particular time were insufficient to meet their debts, there was some prospect that they would be able to meet those debts from their future earnings.
The survey carried out by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys on defenders in debt actions in
342
Scotland, which reported in 1981, said that nearly three-quarters of the defenders in debt actions were having difficulty not only with that bill but with other bills. The Edinburgh University survey of debtors, on a much smaller sample, revealed that one-half of the 100 debtors that it investigated, against whom diligence was being done, were in arrears on other debts as well.
In making this recommendation the Scottish Law Commission says at paragraph 4.6:
"The research suggests that procedures are needed to enable multiple debtors to gain time to pay their debts free from the threat of diligence. The plight of a debtor subjected top diligence by one creditor may be bad enough but may be considerably worsened if he is pressed on all sides by several creditors. In Chapter 2, we saw that particular steps in diligence frequently operate as a catalyst for an instalment settlement. Where the debtor has defaulted on debts due to several creditors, he may find it difficult to enter into payment arrangements with all his creditors …if he simply does nothing, then his total indebtedness may be increased considerably since his several creditors may initiate separate court actions".
This place has discussed at length—fortunately for me I was not involved—the reform of the bankruptcy law in Scotland. The recent Act however means that a debtor with insufficient assets (the ones with whom we are principally concerned) to make sequestration worth while has now no court procedure by which he can initiate some method of making orderly and regular payments of his debts over a reasonable period.
The changes in the bankruptcy law, according to the Law Commission (I wholly agree with it) increased the need for the debt arrangement scheme. It argues that point convincingly at paragraph 4.15 of its report. At Paragraph 4.18 it points out that the debt arrangement scheme is very much to the advantage of the unsecured creditor who has no preferences and who therefore finds sequestration a futile remedy. The debt arrangement scheme:
"is designed essentially for cases where the debtor, while possibly having considerable debts, has assets whose proceeds on sale may be divided among the creditors. But in Scotland, where most people do not own their homes, there are many insolvent small debtors who have income but no assets of any consequence available for distribution.".
It was for that purpose that the debt arrangement scheme was put forward. It is an essential part of the Law Commission's proposals for reform.
The latest civil judicial statistics, which were published last month but relate to 1984, show that there are over 100,000 summary actions for debt in Scotland each year. If about three—quarters of those debtors have more than one debt and are in difficulties, which seems to be the expectation, it is obvious that a great need would be met by having something like the debt arrangement scheme.
That is essentially what the Cork Report recommended for England and Wales. I strongly urge the Committee to accept it. At paragraph 4.33, the Law Commission states:
"a study of other legal systems fortifies us in our conclusion that debt arrangement schemes would fill a gap in the provision made by Scots law for helping ordinary consumer debtors and small traders to arrange for the orderly payment of debts".
I am sure every member of the Committee would want that. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: This is an amendment of great importance. I hope that the Government will

343
give it full consideration even if they do not accept it today. Because of the inclement weather a few weeks ago I was unfortunately unable to be present at Second Reading.
Let me say frankly that after reading this full and comprehensive report but before I had seen the Bill, I had not made up my mind whether the proposals for debt arrangement schemes were sound. I awaited the Bill with interest to see the basis on which the Government had refused to accept these important recommendations, and so reach a conclusion. I was inclined at the early stage to see objections to the scheme. I assumed that, since the Government had not accepted the recommendations it might be said that the scheme would cause undue disruption of the normal work of the sheriff courts, which already have a great burden of civil and criminal work.
I was not able to hear what the Lord Advocate said to justify the Government's refusal to accept the recommendations, but I read what he had to say. In broad terms I understood him to say—I am sorry that I do not have Hansard with me to enable me to quote precisely—that the Government felt that it was not worth the trouble that implementation of the provisions would involve, and that they would not produce results to justify placing such a burden of work upon the courts. Having given the matter further consideration, in the light of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said—I shall avoid so far as possible repeating what he said—I hope that the Government will give further consideration to it.
This matter has preoccupied governments of all political complexions over the years, certainly for as long as I recall having had anything to do with the work of the courts in Scotland. Many commissions have been set up under eminent men of law, but nothing was ever done. The Scottish Law Commission has given prolonged consideration to the matter. What it has produced in effect—this is the sort of consideration that persuaded me to reach a firm and definite conclusion similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—is a package. The whole thing hangs together. I understand that the sheriff clerks are quite happy to accept the burden that would be placed on them if it were accepted, as I hope it will be. They would normally discharge the duties of administrators under these debt arrangement schemes. Now that we have at last got to the stage of dealing with this matter, which is completely non-controversial in any party terms, with the benefit of a full 500-page report in which the Scottish Law Commission has reached a conclusion—and I resist the temptation to refer to any part of the commission's report, because the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has directed attention to the crucial passages—I think that it would be a great pity if, for any but the most weighty considerations, the Committee were to decline to reintroduce into the framework of the Bill these powerful recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment presented so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This is a crucial part of the Bill, and I realise that your Lordships must consider every aspect of it before coming to a conclusion. I read with great care what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on Second Reading, and I very much agreed with the words that he used about the debt counselling schemes going on in Birmingham.
I should like to put to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate the proposition that the Scottish Consumer Council might take a leaf out of the book of the people of Birmingham and pursue this. Surely, the whole question of debt and getting into debt requires much counselling at an early stage to prevent greater problems arising later. Prevention is so much better than cure.
To come to the amendment, I stress again that I am at a disadvantage as I am not a lawyer in these matters. I have looked at the whole of the debt arrangement scheme, and I think that it is extremely complex. I believe that this was mentioned on Second Reading. I am fortified in that view because I understand that the Scottish Consumer Council and the Citizens Advice Bureaux realise that it is an extremely complex scheme although both, with the Scottish Law Commission, see some merit in it.
It was also pointed out on Second Reading that it was costly and voluntary. Costly it may be, but I would rather leave that on one side. When dealing with such difficult questions as debtors and creditors, it is better to leave that matter alone. The voluntary side of the whole operation gives me some cause for concern in that, as I understand it, the scheme would operate over a three-year period when creditors are bound to hold off.
I wish to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate whether we have any experience of such an arrangement working elsewhere. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, says that it has been in operation in some parts of England for some time. If that is so, what are the facts? Can we deduce from the arrangements that have been made south of the Border that it is "a good thing"? My understanding from what I have heard—and perhaps I have not hard the whole story—is that the figures emerging in relation to the scheme are not particularly encouraging. If that is so, we want to know about those figures before we make up our minds. Finally, if it is so good, why is it a voluntary scheme?
I understand that the Scottish Law Commission looked at the question of whether it should be more than a voluntary scheme, but rejected it because it would mean a full means test inquiry. I have my doubts because, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Shuna now says, I understand that the numbers are relatively small when one comes to the final stage in this procedure. If that is the case, are we enacting complex legislation which at the end of the day will produce a mouse?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to endorse what my noble friend has said about the apparent complexity of the scheme to a lay person. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord

345
Wilson of Langside, found it so attractive because in my experience he always pays great attention to how the ordinary person will react to something very close to his own interest. It seems to me that this series of amendments would add 29 pages to the Bill. They are 29 pages of which only one or two are comprehensible to me as a layman even after reading and re-reading them two or three times. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is in agreement with me. I expect that he had the same difficulty. That is a valid criticism which has been made by a number of the people consulted both by the Law Commission initially and by the Government subsequently. I understand that the response was a little lukewarm: I can understand that on those grounds.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend one point. On this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Morton, made the point that this applies only to people who are earning. In the Second Reading debate (at col. 492 of Hansard) the noble Lord said that the idea was to deal with a situation where people were chasing one debtor who through misfortune, illness or loss of employment had not been able to pay. I do not know whether that was a slip. It seems to me that if this clause makes provision for people who are earning it does not concern those who are unemployed. In that case can I ask my noble and learned friend what proportion of people who fall into debt are in full-time employment? That would be an interesting figure to know. I should also like to know whether he feels that this is as complicated and difficult for people to understand as it seems to me.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to support all those who have spoken in support of this amendment, which I consider is extremely important. I agree with the other non-lawyers about the complexity of the matter. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was boasting when she said that she understood two or three pages. That is why I was laughing. I understood the general impression of the Bill, as did no doubt the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson.
I start with the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at Second Reading, when he said (at col. 486) that more debtors are unable rather than unwilling to pay the debt outright. This is the point at which we should start—good faith.
From the heights of the legal contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, perhaps I may discuss my experience with regard to debts in my part of the world, particularly when I was in another place. There are many people on very low incomes. I envy them—not because they are on low incomes—for the sheer management of their finances. One does not necessarily have to be in employment to be able to pay some of one's debts. It is quite remarkable how many working-class families with appallingly low incomes are able to organise their finances.
There are three basic reasons for people getting into debt in the areas about which I am speaking and which I know best. That is why this new clause, or something like it, is required. The first factor is rent. Because frequently the DHSS is late in notifying the local authority that the rent is being paid, there is a build-up of rent arrears as a result. The planning of finances is
346
made very difficult. It is even more difficult if it is private accommodation. A single individual who lets only two or three houses could be in very great difficulties if the money does not come through from the social security to the local council to pay the rent. That is another problem that arises.
There is also a problem that people tend to forget. Nowadays when a teenager reaches 16 with regard to rent he becomes a lodger. They are due to pay some of the rent. In a family that can cause great difficulties. The parents get into debt. However, possibly the biggest single and absolutely necessary expenditure of most families after rent, particularly in parts of Scotland and at this time of year, are the gas and electricity bills. I know that the gas and electricity boards are supposed to adhere to a code of practice. But my experience is that it is not always too closely observed. Far too frequently electricity supplies are cut off. I am led to believe that the electricity board also demands something like 25 per cent. of any debt due up front, right away, before it will even discuss the payment of the debt that is owing. To pay off the debt could amount to up to £25 per week, plus the current bills, if the local electricity board has agreed to fit a prepayment meter, which is what is usually done.
There is another group of reasons why families get into debt—door—to-door credit catalogue sales, Provident or shopping cheques. I am not suggesting that there is not a great need for and a great service provided by the organisations which sell door to door. Many of them have been going for generations as a part of the working-class life. All over Britain they are essential for the proper management of very meagre incomes and have been so for a very long time. However, I am afraid that there is another side to it. One has over-eager and sometimes unscrupulous salesmen. Some heart-rending tales are told of people being allowed up to £1,000 credit when they are obviously not able to meet the payment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who spoke about the work of the social workers and the Citizens' Advice Bureau. In many cases the bureaux are doing what we should like this new clause to be able to do. They try to gather all the debts together and to make arrangements with those who are owed money and also for the collection of the money. People are sometimes amazed at the total of the debt when it is added up. They have never actually added up the total debt. The first time that they have appreciated the amount is when the social worker or the CAB goes through all the debts with them. Sometimes a staggering figure is reached. They are at least able to say to those who are owed the money, "If you want a chance to be repaid, the right way is to take your turn, give me some time and we shall pay you every week, month or every so often a set amount of money so that the debt can be cleared".
I have explained in perhaps a rather pragmatic way the way in which people on low incomes view the situation. I agree that very few of them are likely to have read this new clause. However, I am sure that the spirit of the clause is right. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must have sensed the general feeling in the Committee today. Most of those present agree that something like the amendment in

347
the name of my friend Lord Morton of Shuna and myself would be most acceptable.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Perhaps I may detain the Committe for one moment to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She said that she was surprised I had supported this amendment as though she was saying, in the blunt way we Scots have in personal disputes, that she did not think I was quite that daft.
I quite acknowledge that it is a matter of judgment and it is quite a difficult matter of judgment. My initial judgment tended to be against it. However, I came to the conclusion that I had not looked at the matter in sufficient depth. When I had considered everything in the report, and all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I came to the firm conclusion that it is a matter of judgment. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not going to accept this, I hope that he can give us the kind of detail for which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, asked in order to convince us that as a matter of judgment we should vote against the amendment. Unless he does so I think that he will have failed to discharge the onus which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, placed upon him in presenting the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I believe, as has already been said, that this matter is not one of party politics, and I would accept that at the very outset. The Government recognise the general desirability of attempting to find ways of dealing with the problems of multiple indebtedness. However, I wish to make it clear that perhaps in certain comments that have been made today—I am thinking in particular of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said—we are straying into a different territory and that is the question of consumer credit restriction. We are not dealing with that today.
Secondly, we are dealing with the question of multiple indebtedness. I am not suggesting that, for instance, some of the remarks about arrears of rent may not be relevant, but if that is the only debt, we are not into the realm of multiple indebtedness.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made a very important point, to which I shall return later, that pragmatic voluntary arrangements can be made without any reference to statute and can operate extremely well. So far as I am able, I shall try to assist the Committee to show the main features of the commission's recommended scheme. I do not dispute that it is a complex scheme and, as I shall subsequently say, that is a matter of criticism. As I understand it, and as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, it starts off as a voluntary scheme. For the reasons that my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, that is because the commission did not wish to be involved in a scheme which concerned compulsory means testing outside the system or process of sequestration. I think that Members of the Committee will fully understand that general principle. It would allow the debtor an extension of time to pay his debts in reasonable instalments over three and possibly five years. The
348
debtor's compliance would be supervised by an administrator, who would normally be the sheriff clerk.
I think it is important to bear the second point in mind because one is dealing with an issue of balance between creditors and debtors. Creditors present and future would be precluded from taking diligence, or otherwise seeking sequestration, during the period of the operation of the scheme. That is an important factor to bear in mind so that even a future creditor would be barred from pursuing his claim if such a scheme were to be effective.
Thirdly, creditors' claims would rank rateably, and they would not be entitled to secure any preferences which they might have under the contract between the individual creditor and debtor. Fourthly, the sheriff would be able to order deductions from the debtor's earnings to be paid to the administrator and disbursed by him to the creditors. Fifthly, the payment of debts in full, or by a composition of less than 100 pence in the pound, would be premitted and the debtor would be discharged only if he complied with the scheme. On the other hand, if he defaulted the scheme would come to an end. Sixthly, there would be no vesting of assets in a trust deed for creditors; the debtor might realise specific assets to pay off the sum of indebtedness.
That is a very brief outline of the scheme. As I retail it I believe that the Committee will see that it is not a simple scheme. It is in fact rather complicated, involving as it does the effect not only on those who are creditors at the time of the scheme coming into operation, but it also affects the rights of those who subsequently, in contracting with the individual, become his creditors, and they are therefore cut off from what would otherwise be their legal rights.
I believe it was suggested that there was no other way to deal with the question of multiple debts. I should remind Members of the Committee that there is the voluntary trust deed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, will be aware of that, as certainly will be the noble Lord opposite. It is the most common method of resolving personal insolvency in Scotland, although I accept that for any voluntary trust deed form of composition to be entered into there must be some question of assets.
The scheme also requires that there should be some assets available because, although it is perfectly true that loss of employment per se may not exclude a person, the person who volunteers for the scheme must be likely to be able to produce £600 in, I believe, three years. The problems of doing so, in prospect, obviously have an effect on those who would benefit from the scheme.
Since the Scottish Law Commission's report has been quoted perhaps I may remind the Committee of what the Scottish Law Commission said at paragraph 2.125:
"Although the research conducted for this report suggests that multiple debt problems may be less common than might be supposed (inasmuch as there appear to be relatively few cases in which two or more debts of a multiple debtor reached the diligence stage simultaneously), we think the problems are sufficiently acute to call for legislative intervention".
They go on:
"In Chapter 4, therefore, we recommend the introduction in Scots law"—

349
and I underline these words—
"of a new insolvency process designed particularly for wage and salary earners and small traders in multiple debt, to be called a debt arrangement scheme".
I draw the attention of the Committee to the words "a new insolvency process". This is not a new insolvency process but it cuts down the rights of creditors in a way which would not be done if it were an insolvency process.
When I received the report from the Scottish Law Commission, I arranged for public views to be obtained on their recommendations. The Scottish Law Commission had already done so and I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out that, at the time they issued their consultative memorandum, there had been a mixed response on consultation. That appears in the same paragraph. The consultation paper which was put out on my behalf noted the fact that when the commission sought views on their own provisional proposals there had been such a mixed reaction. Of course despite the possible difficulties the commission recorded the opinion to which the noble Lord opposite has referred with regard to the provision in principle:
"for the orderly and regular payment of debts outside bankruptcy proceedings"
as being available to:
"multiple debtors, however few, who genuinely wish to meet their creditors' claims and have the means to do so within a reasonable time".
Bearing in mind that this is a voluntary scheme, one might, say that if they can volunteer for one form of arrangement, they will be able to volunteer for other arrangements, which is presently the case for any debtor.
There was a similar mixed reaction in responses to my consultation paper. For instance, the Law Society of Scotland expressed concern that a debt arrangement scheme should be so similar to bankruptcy, and they considered that careful thought should be given before any additional informal type of bankruptcy proceeding was introduced, as there may be no real need for any such new alternative procedure. I believe that to be an important comment, particularly in view of the way in which the Scottish Law Commission has proceeded to put the matter forward.
From a different standpoint the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux thought that the debt arrangement scheme procedure would be advantageous in that it would examine the debtor's ability to pay in the light of his other commitments but they noted that the least complex schemes are often the easiest to administer and understand and the most cost-effective in terms of both finance and time. The difficulty is that this cannot be said to be the kind of scheme which they had in mind. The Scottish Consumer Council supported in principle the introduction of debt arrangement schemes but they too thought that the detailed provisions envisaged complicated conditions attached to eligibility, complicated procedures to set up the scheme and a cumbersome method of operation. They thought that the schemes would be difficult for debtors and creditors to understand and expensive to operate. That is a very fair and important criticism to bear in mind.
350
Obviously, one question in particular which the Government had to consider was whether the proposed procedure would benefit a sufficient number of debtors to justify the not inconsiderable expense in administering debt arrangement schemes. The proposed procedure was intended to assist a relatively small sector of debtors. These are persons with several debts at an advanced stage in the recovery process. While there is a small but significant level of multiple debt this as I have already referred to in the Scottish Law Commission's report, is perhaps less common than might be supposed, because as I have already indicated there are relatively few cases in which two or more debts reach the diligence stage simultaneously. That means that in normal circumstances the debts are paid off or otherwise discharged in sequence no doubt but without at the end of the day requiring to go to the diligence stage simultaneously.
It has also to be noted that debt arrangement schemes as proposed by the commission were designed particularly for wage and salary earners and small traders. I should like to observe—and this was a matter that the revenue departments pointed out—that the protection from diligence which was inherent in this scheme would allow such traders to carry on business, possibly both to the detriment of themselves and particularly their suppliers and customers. This is so for reasons which I think the Committee can readily understand because the suppliers and customers would be the future creditors and lose their rights to use the legal steps which would otherwise be open to them during the currency of the scheme.
There are similar schemes elsewhere. Reference was made to England and the use of administration orders, and also to the Cork report. At the end of the day that part of the Cork report was not taken into the insolvency legislation. That is one point. A recent study prepared in connection with the Civil Justice Review in England and Wales investigated administration orders which were granted. The findings showed that one year after the orders had been made over half of the debtors had paid more than 10 per cent. of their debt but,—and this is an important statistic—in 40 per cent. of the cases there was evidence of default. The Committee will observe that under this arrangement immediately there is default the scheme will come to an end. In the first year there should then be 40 per cent. of those who had volunteered for the scheme, for whom the scheme would come to an end. That fact is important when considering the issue of the overall need to bring in the scheme. These findings also highlighted the scale of the repayment problem with large total debts and relatively small repayments over long periods and the limited success in obtaining recovery of the debts. In this connection it has to be noted that the commission's recommended debt arrangement schemes are voluntary and their success—with payments for a period which could be up to five years—would be conditional on a fairly high degree of self—discipline on the part of the debtor.
A further point which I took into account (although at the end of the day it was merely a balancing factor because it seemed that these comments were more against than in favour of the scheme) was that there were resource implications. I am not going to claim

351
that they were so immense that that in itself would have precluded it, but this was a further matter to be considered because, on that view, I was not convinced that it would be justifiable to accept the commission's recommendation that such schemes should be introduced. These schemes are only set up at a fairly late stage in a creditor's indebtedness and only if he volunteers to do so.
It appears from what has been said in Committee that the problem we are dealing with—namely, multiple indebtedness—is one which should be tackled at a much earlier stage. I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this matter. But that is the time when establishing communication between the debtor and the creditors and making a realistic disposal of what the debtor has available can secure the best way of dealing with indebtedness.
Debt counselling is not within the scope of the present Bill. Indeed, I have to add that it is not within my ministerial responsibilities—whatever else may be! I know that there are interesting developments in Scotland with regard to the encouragement of such counselling. The Birmingham scheme, which has been noted, is one which I have no doubt was being followed carefully by bodies north of the Border.
Informal debt counselling might well prove to be most useful at the earlier stage of a debtor's indebtedness. I shall watch with interest developments in that regard in Scotland. I apologise for having taken time because I recognise that this is a most important issue. For all the reasons I have set out, I am not satisfied that a scheme of such complexity would be properly understood. The voluntary nature of the scheme makes it difficult to assess the degree of success it will have. The fact that it involves considerable restraint upon creditors' rights in a way which would have to be looked at very carefully, plus the fact that, at the end of the day, there is very likely to be a substantial default which would bring the scheme to an end long before it succeeded in its purpose, mean that I cannot recommend that these amendments that the noble Lord opposite has proposed, and in particular this amendment, should be accepted. The Government were careful to consult further on the matter before they came to the conclusion that they did, but I hope I have said anough to indicate that we took this matter seriously before we reached the decision that this should not be included within this Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am abliged to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. It is pleasant on a Scottish legal Bill for a change to have something which is not just a discussion between the noble and learned Lord opposite and myself. I am obliged for the kind words and support form the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and for the support for counseling which I think I raised at Second Reading.
On the Birmingham matter, no doubt the noble and learned Lord opposite will reallise that in Birmingham this is being run by the local authority, and there may
352
be resource implications if it is to come into local authorities in Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised the complexity of this part of the Bill, but it is no more complex than the rest of the Bill if one gets into the arrestment and the definitions we get there. It is difficult for a layman to understand what is being talked about. It is even difficult for a lawyer.
There is of course the voluntary nature of this arrangement. It has to be voluntary. The difference between the debt arrangement scheme as proposed by the Scottish Law Commission and this amendment is that it is voluntary on the part of the debtor. The present voluntary arrangements are, in a sense, voluntary on the part of the creditor, because there is no purpose in the voluntary trust deed or the other arrangements that may be made at present unless all creditors join in. One creditor can say, "No, I will not agree", and go ahead and use diligence, and that throws the whole voluntary arrangement out. Under the debt arrangement scheme, if the debtor entered into it, all the creditors would have to agree up until the point of default.
On statistics the noble and learned Lord quoted paragraph 2.125, and perhaps there is a difference in the statistics I quoted. He quoted the few cases in which two or more debts reached the diligence stage simultaneously. There may be reasons for that such as that creditors sometimes give up. Certainly the other statistics I quoted suggested that this is a common problem; that in three-quarters of the cases where decree for debt is granted there are other debtors who have other debts which have to be met.
I do not think that I can go any further into this save to say there are obviously two views. The Law Commission was firmly of the opinion that this was necessary. That also appeared to be the view of the Cork Report for England and Wales—although the Government did not accept that—and I think that the appropriate course is for me to press this matter and seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Denington, B.

Kennet, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Lockwood, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

353

Mishcon, L.

Stallard, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rhodes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winstanley, L.

Seear, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Serota, B.

Ypres, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Knollys, V.

Aldenham, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Aldington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ampthill, L.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mar, C.

Bessborough, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Birdwood, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Brightman, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moran, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cathcart, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Coleraine, L.

Cox, B.

Porritt, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cromartie, E.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gainford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L,

Thorneycroft, L.

Hankey, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harvington, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hayter, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ilchester, E.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 35 not moved.]
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Private Rented Housing
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about private rented housing that has been made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.
"The Government are very keen to encourage the provision of private housing for letting by a greater variety of agencies than at present and to increase freedom of choice for people wishing to rent their homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I propose, therefore, to give local authorities an explicit statutory power to provide financial assistance to the private sector, including housing associations, in order to assist in the provision of rented housing using private sources of finance. We envisage that financial assistance might be particularly appropriate for the support of schemes involving assured tenancies. We propose to include the necessary provisions in the Local Government Bill this Session.
"Local authorities will be able to use these powers to keep the rents of new housing developments by the private sector to levels which prospective tenants can be expected to afford. The purpose is also to give further encouragement to the introduction of private finance into the provision of such housing. I hope that authorities and others concerned will make the maximum use of these powers to encourage the development of schemes by responsible landlords for rented housing, particularly in areas where the needs are greatest.
"It is important, however, that such financial assistance should not be used simply to feather-bed private sector provision by removing all risk from it and converting it into a concealed form of private sector lending to the public sector. The legislation we are proposing will, therefore, require that such financial assistance should be provided only with our consent. The Government expect individual local authorities to contain the cost of financial assistance within their existing programmes. We envisage that assistance would normally take the form of annual grants to bridge the gap between financing the costs of a development and the expected rental income, but other forms of assistance will be covered by our proposals.
"There are four key matters on which we would normally wish to be satisfied before giving consent: first, the commercial risk of the development should rest substantially with the private sector and, in particular, the local authority's commitment should

355
not be an open—ended one to meet any differences that might arise between costs and income; second, the level of financial assistance should not exceed in amount or value 30 per cent. of the overall cost of the scheme; third, the activity of managing and maintaining the houses concerned should be carried out by the private sector participant and not by the authority offering financial assistance; fourth, if local authority land is involved, the land should be sold freehold or on a lease of not less than 99 years.
"Other factors that we might also wish to take into account in deciding to give or withhold consent are the overall costs of a scheme, the proposed tenure mix, whether the tenants would have the right to buy, rights given to the authority to nominate tenants, the likely proportion of tenants receiving housing benefit and the proposed rent levels.
"Some authorities are already planning to assist the provision of housing by private sector landlords using certain existing powers. It is important that such schemes should be developed in accordance with the criteria I have indicated. We are, therefore, proposing that the Local Government Bill should include a provision that, with effect from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not, without our consent, give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations, or enter into agreements to give such assistance in connection with the acquisition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, maintenance or management of accommodation for letting or licensing, including hostels and lodging houses. We do not, however, propose that consent should be required with respect to assistance which is expressly required by an obligation imposed by an agreement made on or before today. Financial assistance given without our consent after today will be declared to be unlawful and transactions relating to financial assistance entered into without our consent after today will be declared void. Financial assistance for these purposes includes grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, subscribing for share or loan capital, and the provision of benefits through the transfer of land or other property, the provision of goods services or facilities, the carrying out of works, and the making of other payments.
"We propose to initiate consultations immediately on the details of our proposals. I am placing in the Library copies of a document which sets out the proposals fully and which explains certain exemptions we propose to make from the requirements for consent. Copies of the document and of this statement are today being sent to all local authorities and to the local authority associations. Copies are also being sent to the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties. Meanwhile I would advise any local authorities and others who are actively contemplating schemes to seek the guidance of my department or the Welsh Office."
That concludes the Statement, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Minister in another place. I welcome the fact that the Minister has mentioned in the Statement that there will be full consultation with the people involved before the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships' House.
May I put one or two pertinent questions to the Minister? Is the scheme designed to encourage local authorities to participate in such activities or is it designed to stop a repeat of the Sheffield United Kingdom housing scheme? Am I to take it from the Statement that the Sheffield City Council, which has by-passed the normal procedures in the scheme I have just mentioned, will still be allowed to go ahead with that scheme? As I understand, it caters for up to 2,000 houses in conjunction with a deal that it has done with one of the national building societies outside the normal remit. Will the Sheffield scheme be allowed to go ahead, bearing in mind the fact that, if I have understood the Minister correctly, the provisions take effect from midnight tonight and nobody can proceed with a scheme without the consent of the Secretary of State?
It appears from the Statement that there will be no new government money to support any such schemes. Does that not mean that there will be very few of these schemes starting? Most of the local authorities in the public housing sector are short of funds to do what is necessary, such as repairs. In the Statement, the Minister also said that local authorities will be expected to give up their management rights and these will be operated by the private participants. In view of that, will a local authority retain the right to nominate tenants for these properties from its own waiting list, bearing in mind that it will be expected to fund up to a maximum of 30 per cent. of the cost of a scheme?
The Minister mentioned the right to buy. If this were imposed as a diktat, as in the rest of the public sector, would it not be a complete discouragement to the public sector, which would be expected to participate, if the Government were to impose on this sector a mandatory right to buy for tenants taking these houses?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that important Statement. He will accept that it is very complex, as indeed is the document to which he referred which has been placed in the Library. He will also accept that we shall wish to study that document and the Statement more carefully before we can finalise our views on this whole matter. But in general we welcome the Statement because it appears to signal two things. First, it appears that the Government now accept that the principal need so far as housing is concerned is for houses to rent. Secondly, it appears to signal the fact that the Government recognise that it is no longer acceptable for all their efforts to be restricted to increasing the percentage of owner-occupiers, which hitherto has seemed to be the Government's single and only housing policy.
With regard to the new arrangements, the Statement makes clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, that the axe falls tonight. The Statement says,

357
"from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not, without our consent, give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations",
etc. I should merely like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that consent will not be unreasonably withheld. I know that more is said about consent in the Statement.
Going on from that, the Statement makes clear that consent will not be required for schemes already in the pipeline. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, should like the Minister to confirm that the exciting and interesting scheme already afoot in Sheffield will not be frustrated by the new arrangements.
With regard to the provision of extra finance, is it not possible that, were the 20 per cent. rule regarding local authority use of funds received from the sale of council houses to be relaxed, it might well be that local authorities would be in a very much better position to fund arrangements of this kind than they perhaps now are?
While this new scheme may very well bring forward more homes—that certainly is to be warmly welcomed and, I am sure, will be warmly welcomed by noble Lords in all parts of the House—it nevertheless remains a fact that many of the people who seek those homes to rent will have difficulty in paying the rent? That is inevitable.
We have an elaborate system of support schemes, housing benefit and so on, which is so bureaucratic and complex that it is not working fully. I should like to ask the Minister again about the possibility of doing away with all those elaborate schemes and focusing help in a single benefit paid as of right, in the same way as child benefit is paid as of right and retirement pension is paid to all as of right, but with the provision that through the tax scheme money can be creamed off by the Government where it is not needed. A system of that kind would, I am quite sure, be immensely valuable.
The Government mention that all these documents will be sent to the various bodies which he named and interested parties but the noble Lord did not mention specifically the building societies in that connection. I think many of us hope that with the new freedom which the building societies now enjoy they will be encouraged to take part in schemes of this kind. I should like the noble Lord, if he can, to confirm that the Government are consulting the building societies individually, or perhaps with the Building Societies Association, on participation in schemes such as this.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome—in one case generous and in the other, from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, slightly more cautious—of the Statement which I have just repeated. This Statement is good news for local authorities, but more importantly it is good news for prospective tenants of rented accommodation. The Housing Corporation already has powers to make grants of up to 30 per cent. of the costs of rental housing schemes. Local authority associations have sought similar powers and we are now proposing to give them to them. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, welcomed the consultation exercise which surrounds this proposal of my right honourable and honourable
358
friends, and I can confirm that the financial institutions are also being sent copies of the consultation paper.
The position in Sheffield is rather curious. There are in fact two schemes going on in Sheffield. I have details of one, which is as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, explained, and I understand that this is signed, sealed and delivered and therefore will not be caught by the Statement. As to the second scheme, it will depend entirely on what the terms and conditions are. But assuming that they follow the criteria that I have outlined in the Statement, there is absolutely no reason why it should not go ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, noted that the local authorities were not to have management of the schemes. It is quite natural that the risks and rewards, as it were, should go the principal provider of the money. He also asked about nomination rights. The retention of nomination rights is simply one of the factors to be considered and obviously we have no objection in principle. But I have no doubt that this is the sort of comment that will be made in the responses to the consultation paper. I appreciate especially that some of the tortuous, legally framed phrases and clauses that I read out from the Statement need very careful study indeed, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on that.
As to the use of capital receipts and the 20 per cent. restriction, many of these schemes are likely to be in those areas that we discussed at length in our debate on the inner cities on Monday, and these are areas where they have very limited capital receipts anyway. But on the general point I do not think it serves the interests of either the noble Lord or the House to repeat my endless arguments on the use of capital receipts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what will happen to applications for consent between the axe falling and the conclusion of the consulation period and how long is that likely to be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the consultation period is two months. The Statement made it quite clear that any contract entered into after midnight tonight would be caught, and of course when the Bill gets onto the statute book it will be the legislative base of that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how much will this cost?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the Statement said, it is intended that this money shall be found from within existing local authority funds. But the whole point about this is rather like the success of the urban development corporations in that it gives the local authorities the opportunity to use enormous leverage and as a result get more houses for less money.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I found the Minister's Statement very interesting and I shall be reading what he has said. I wish to take up only two points. I believe I am correct in saying that he said that the Government will not give more than 30 per cent. grant. Is that correct? I gather that it is not correct. I am very glad to know it. I am deeply involved in one

359
housing association which is trying very hard to get private money into rented housing. The Government have offered a 30 per cent. grant. However, it is simply not enough. We have done exercises on this matter, and we are not the only housing association to do such exercises.
The role of housing associations is not to provide high-cost rented housing. They may attain perhaps 5 per cent. above fair rent or perhaps a bit more than that. But a 30 per cent. grant, as we have all found from the studies, is not enough to provide housing for the people whom housing associations feel they are in this field to help. I am sure that that applies to local authorities as well.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at the actual level at which grants are pitched. We all want to try to make this scheme succeed. Rents may be above fair rent prices, but not far above them; otherwise it will kill the scheme. I think that that is an important point.
My other point is that the Minister says that the management shall be private. I do not know whether that will help the scheme. I should have thought that financial institutions would not be interested in taking on management. That is not their function; they are not skilled in management, while housing associations are. I should have thought that such institutions would very much like to be in partnerships with housing associations which would undertake management for them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government regard housing associations as part of the private sector. Perhaps that is part of the answer to the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I shook my head when the noble Baroness said that the Government were providing 30 per cent. grant. In fact, in this particular instance it is the local authorities who will be providing the 30 per cent. grant. These sorts of schemes are not yet properly off the ground and I think it is too early to say whether the 30/70 per cent. mix is right or whether it ought to be altered.
I have also heard, out and about in the country, exactly the same thoughts which the noble Baroness has just voiced. Obviously we shall take those considerations on board.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise. I had not quite finished my question to my noble friend, and I gave way to the noble Baroness. The Minister did his best to answer the question but I should like to know the actual amount of money involved and also whether the rents will be subject to rent control or will be free rents. As my noble friend will have seen in several articles in the more market-oriented papers, the way to provide the largest amount of housing is to deregulate the housing market, and not to work on a system which was designed to stop soldiers from the 1914 war being evicted from their houses.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know about the 1914 war, because the Housing Acts which my noble friends normally complain of were those passed by a more recent Labour Government. Be that as it may, the amount of money involved is impossible to
360
predict because it depends entirely on how much use local authorities actually make of these schemes. However, what I have said is that this is constrained, in a sense, by the normal local authority budgetary arrangements.
So far as freeing rents is concerned, the objective is to increase our very successful policy of assured tenancies, which incidentally was agreed between parties.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has dealt with the questions. However, I must correct him historically. He referred to the fact that this side of the House is always concerned and annoyed as regards housing Acts passed by the last Labour Government. Perhaps I ought to say that the biggest villain of the piece is in fact the 1957 Housing Act, which I think was passed when Mr. Powell was the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have difficulty enough with the present and, clearly, if I am wrong on my history, I apologise.

Debtors (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Articles exempt from poinding]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which is designed to increase the value of the protected tools of the trade of the debtor from a figure of £500 as shown in the Bill to a figure of £1,000. It is obviously essential that the debtor should have protection of equipment by which he can earn money. I suggest, and I have the support of the Scottish Consumer Council, that the figure of £500 is too low. Many tradesmen have tools which have a value higher than that which is required for their work. One thinks of plumbers, electricians and certain others who will have a considerable number of tools which they need. If the tools are sold, that adds to the burden.
It has also been suggested to me that some people carrying on businesses using computer hardware would be particularly hard hit if the level of £500 were to be left in the Bill. I think the purpose of the provision is entirely clear and that there is no dispute in the Committee that there should be this sort of protection. All I suggest is that the level at the moment is too low. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: This limit was recommended by the Scottish Law Commission following comments on their Consultative Memorandum No. 48 published in October 1980. I think the noble Lord opposite will know that that memorandum proposed a limit of £250. I accept that that was in 1980. Nevertheless, the report put forward the figure of £500. I believe that report was published

361
in 1985. I may say that similar monetary limits are found in the clause dealing with educational material and also in paragraph I of Schedule 5 dealing with summary warrant poindings.
In considering the commission's recommendations, which, as I have said, were based on wide consultation, the Government agreed that the Bill should contain a monetary limit and that the figure suggested by the commission was the right level. This is on the basis that this exemption is considered to be mainly intended for debtors of modest income whose tools of trade are of relatively small value.
The setting of any monetary limit must, as your Lordships will appreciate, contain a certain arbitrary element, and it is right that the monetary limit should reflect current circumstances and requirements. That is the reason why the Bill confers power on the Lord Advocate to vary the amount by regulations. The existence of that power will enable the Lord Advocate to keep the situation under review and to act if it becomes apparent that the monetary limit requires to be changed to reflect different circumstances. If the amendment were accepted there would be a curious result. The exemption in ordinary poindings would have a limit of £1,000 on aggregate value while the exemption for summary warrant poindings would remain at £500.
With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and withdraw the amendment. I cannot recommend it to the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I was fully aware that if this amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to amend Schedule 5 also. The limit in Clause 16(1)(d) for educational requirements, if I may put it that way, is a rather different figure and possibly £500 for educational requirements is reasonable; but for tools of the trade I suggest that this figure is too low. However, it is not a matter on which I wish to divide the Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("(g) all articles in a house, caravan, houseboat or other structure which is the only or principal residence of the debtor.")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 38, and on this occasion I have managed to put forward an amendment to deal with Schedule 5 at the same time.
This amendment deals with a matter about which I spoke at Second Reading. It excludes household articles totally so that a person's household goods would not be subject to the warrant sale procedure. At paragraph 2.64 of the Scottish Law Commission's report it is made quite clear that inability to pay, rather than mere unwillingness to pay, is the reason for this difficulty. The report refers to various surveys. The official one, if I may refer to the census return in that way, says that,
362
"While 5% of men in Scotland were unemployed and actively seeking work, among debtors interviewed the proportion unemployed and actively seeking work was as high as 20%.
These figures are from back in time. The number of men in Scotland unemployed and actively seeking work now is rather higher than 5 per cent. The report continues:
"only 45% of debtors interviewed were in full-time employment at the time court action started. It was also found that 41% of debtors were living in households where the main source of income was likely to be state benefits since neither they nor their spouses (if any) were in employment. Nearly half the debtors who were unemployed or temporarily sick had been out of work or away from work for at least six months and over three-quarters for over three months. A clear picture emerged of debtors and their spouses as people on low incomes: over a third of debtors had a weekly income of not more than £30,"—
these are, of course, 1978 figures—
"well below the national average. Ability to pay is clearly also affected by factors such as household size, the number of dependent children."
and so on. So it is quite clear—and with rising unemployment since then the position must have become worse—that in general the vast majority of warrant sales involve very deprived and destitute people. It is wholly wrong that this range of people should have their household goods subjected to the procedure of a warrant sale. I welcome, as I welcomed at an earlier stage, the fact that the Bill abolishes the disastrous and demeaning habit of the sales taking place in the debtor's house. So far, so good, But these debtors tend to be at the very lowest end of income and if a sale of their household goods takes place they are not able to retrieve the situation.
It might be suggested that there will be the occasional wealthy person who has goods of considerable value in his house. When somebody has thousands of pounds of antiques in his house there is nothing to stop the creditor going to sequestration, which might well be the more appropriate course for that type of debt and absolute refusal to pay. But for the more general case of the unemployed, sick or disabled person, I suggest that the warrant sale of household goods should be abolished. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I read what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said at Second Reading. He said that when we had gone through the list of what was excluded,
"There is not much left".— Official Report, 13/1/87; col. 493.]
I think I am right in saying that those were his actual words. There is a fundamental principle here on which we may differ. I refer to the whole question of deterrence. I shall not go into other deterrents, but the figures that were given at Second Reading show that the deterrent of having to go through a warrant sale, albeit now, thank goodness, modified to far more reasonable arrangements than had been the case in the past, has a good effect in that we get down to a very small number of cases at the end of the day.
I shall not pursue the route of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who referred to people having expensive things in their houses. There are other methods of dealing with that. While I entirely support the exclusions that have been put into the Bill, I wonder whether the deterrent effect of the end of the road and a warrant sale should be written out of the Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to make a brief point on deterrence. I can see the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that in the last resort one should be able to sell things to reclaim debt, although it has been pointed out just how humiliating that can be. But there is another way of looking at the matter, especially in certain parts of Scotland. If there was no warrant sale, in practically all cases credit would tend to dry up. In other words, part of the reason for people, especially less scrupulous people, lending money is that they know that at the end of the day they can have a warrant sale or threaten the shame of a warrant sale to recover the debt. This could perhaps disastrously force people to go to moneylenders to get the money, leading to another chain of deprivation. There are other quite valid reasons for not having warrant sales. It could get rid of a great deal of the debt that has accrued because unscrupulous people lend money on the basis of the warrant sale. That is another way of looking at the matter.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I listened with interest to what has been said on this matter in different parts of the Committee. Perhaps I may take up the issue of credit with which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just dealt. As I made plain in response to an earlier debate, we are not dealing with that issue this evening: nor do I understand it to be suggested that warrant sales should not remain as a last resort.
It is important to bear in mind how this clause is framed. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in the part of the clause to which this amendment is directed we are dealing with articles belonging to a debtor which shall be exempt from poinding. There is nothing stated as to where these articles are to be. They may be found elsewhere than in a dwelling house.
Subsection (2) lists the articles that are to be exempt from poinding,
"if they are at the time of the poinding in a dwelling house"—
and the Committee should then observe what follows,
"and are reasonably required for the use in the dwelling house of the person residing there or a member of his household".
Thereafter are set out all the articles that one hopes would be found even in a relatively poor household. It may be that those items go beyond that. For example, there might not be one refrigerator. Nevertheless, all these items are exempt from poinding because they are thought to be articles which are reasonably required for the householder's use.
To take the same principle into Clause 1 would be to drive a coach and horses through the whole poinding process because it would mean that all articles found in the house would be exempt, whoever the poinding is being executed against. It would not be difficult to think of situations in which it would be a nonsense to say that just because a person has some valuable Louis XV furniture or Canalettos, or whatever there may be on the walls of his dwelling house, he should be freed from the poinding process and that his creditor should go so far as to sequestrate him in order to force him to pay his debts. That is not a proper use of this sequestration process.
I hope that the noble Lord opposite will reconsider what this amendment imports. I also have to say that
364
this is a very technical matter. In any event, it would be impossible to accept the provisions of this amendment which sit ill with the definition of "dwelling house" found in Clause 45. For all those reasons, I must suggest to the Committee that this amendment should be resisted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was speaking also to Amendment No. 38. Is that right?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 37 and 88.
>Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I beg the Committee's pardon.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Even when one of my amendments is accepted in principle, I am accustomed to the fact that there may be something wrong with its drafting. I fully accept that that is a necessary consequence. However, the purpose of the amendment is to drive a coach and horses through the Bill in the sense that the amendment intends to exclude poinding and warrant sales of household goods and articles belonging to the debtor.
The vast majority of debtors exist in areas of low income, in housing schemes in inner city areas. I merely say that if their walls are covered with Canalettos and they are sitting on Louis XV chairs, and so on, they are very ill-advised or they are paying a high insurance premium. That is not the position of the average debtor, as is shown in the Law Commission's report.
This is a matter of principle. I accept that if the principle is accepted there will be a considerable change in this part of the Bill but I think it is appropriate to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Aylestone, L.

Nicol, B.

Birk, B.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Ezra, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ypres, E.

365

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hesketh, L.

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldenham, L.

Killearn, L.

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Knollys, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brightman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Portland, D.

Cromartie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Erroll, E.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hayter, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("(including not more than one refrigerator)") and insert ("or for storing such equipment or utensils").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to alter the list that appears in subsection (2) of this clause which, as I said at Second Reading, is fairly extensive. I look forward to the intervention that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, intends to make. What worries me particularly is subsection (k) which covers:
"furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking, storing or eating food (including not more than one refrigerator)".
The reference to the refrigerator comes straight out of the Law Commission's report, but one can study both volumes of the report without finding any reason why it was so against debtors having more than one refrigerator.
I should have thought that a freezer is a refrigerator. It is also, as is a refrigerator, a piece of equipment—I do not think it would be fair to describe it as "furniture"—that is used for storing food. It appears to me that in certain areas of Scotland, especially the country areas and the islands where there is difficulty of access and the possibility at times of being cut off, many people reasonably require a deep freezer as an
366
essential means of keeping their stock of food. No doubt they also find it useful to have a refrigerator. As I said at Second Reading, it seems strange that if one has a combined fridge/freezer, which is something that is quite commonly advertised these days, it may be retained. But if one has two articles, one of them must go.
I should have thought that there was no need for the words in brackets. As the Committee will see, they are covered by the opening words of subsection (2), because all these articles must be "reasonably required for … use". Therefore, thinking about this imaginary debtor's house with more than one refrigerator, perhaps many more, the first decision to make is whether they are reasonably required for use. It seems to me that those words cover the situation and one does not need the words in brackets.
However it seems strange that what is not covered is the ordinary store cupboard in which people store their dishes, cutlery, pots and pans, all of which are protected articles. That is out. It is not covered by paragraph (k) or anything else. It is in an endeavour to put that matter right that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will accept this amendment. Perhaps if he just nods his head, I can sit down. I see he does not. I find it utterly and unbelievably pathetic that in an Act of the British Parliament there should be such a provision. To me it smacks of the Dickensian-Victorian attitude towards the undeserving poor: "Two refrigerators and they cannot pay their debts? How shocking!". The Government should think again.
There is a great deal in these provisions about which I wish I had spoken previously. I find the feeling behind this provision disturbing and unacceptable. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, that there is nothing in the Law Commission's report to indicate why it was suggested in the draft Bill, as I gather it was. I find it very difficult to understand why the Government thought it up and why no one scored it out.
I have sat in debtor courts at all levels for many years and I fully appreciate the interests of creditors. Frequently I had great sympathy for them, but can one really plead, in the same way as was said of the girl's baby, "It is a very small refrigerator"? Maybe we could have "at least two very small refrigerators". I think that when government thinking reaches such a stage it is better to take the provision out of the Bill altogether, and I hope that they will do that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This subsection contains a list of homely items but it attempts to list what is essential for people to retain if some of their possessions are to be taken away. I have been an under-sheriff and I have signed documents which involve this process. Before doing so, I asked precisely and in some detail what it involved for those people. Of course I wanted to know whether the essentials would remain.
I can understand that it may sound ridiculous to the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and

367
learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, to make a distinction between a fridge-freezer and a freezer. But the truth is that a refrigerator, which may or may not have a small freezer incorporated, is an absolutely basic essential for anyone in this country today. However, it is also true to say that if one is short of money the very last thing one does is keep a freezer full of frozen food. That is a very expensive proceeding.
I think the attitude of other people to this whole process matters, besides the debtor in question. I know a family who at the moment are in trouble. They cannot get their debts paid but they have an electric organ in a corner. I think that would have been exempt under the last amendment. It has been greatly discussed as a small electric organ in the corner. I think a freezer full of food is in that category. Of course it is a nice thing to have if you can afford it, but it is expensive.
In the context of this list I feel it is perfectly reasonable to say that there should be a refrigerator but not a deep-freeze, which is a big thing you keep food in for a considerable period of time. It is expensive food to buy. This is money tied up. It is not something that fits easily into this list. Whether the legal distinction between a refrigerator and a deepfreeze is adequately made here is for the lawyers to say.
6 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I think perhaps we should like to hear the definition of where the law stands as far as a fridge-freezer is concerned.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am bound to express a certain degree of surprise at the noble Lord putting forward this amendment, particularly in view of what he sought to do in his last amendment. We are dealing here with a clause and that part of a clause which provides for articles which are to be exempt from poinding. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out. the refrigerator has now become accepted, I think, as almost standard equipment in most houses. It seems to me absolutely correct that where one is dealing with a subsection which says "equipment …used for…storing food." it should he made plain that a refrigerator, if it is to be found there, will he exempt unless it can he said that it is not reasonably required for use in the dwelling-house. It makes plain that one refrigerator, as a rule, is certainly to be so regarded.
The noble Lord accepted that the Scottish Law Commission in its draft Bill specifically included this provision. We have taken it into the Bill. There is no question of it being in some sense put in in a slightly patronising way, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, was suggesting. Far from it. The noble Lord opposite said, "Well, in certain parts of the country a freezer is necessary". I would certainly say that a freezer would fall within the definition of equipment used for storing food. If my noble friend were to ask me, "What about the fridge-freezer, that which has two parts to it;", I think I would have to say that it depends on whether it is divisible or indivisible. But at the end of the day one would expect those who are responsible for poinding to exercise a reasonable
368
view of the matter. If it appears quite plain that the deep-freeze is something which in a remote part of the country is essential and is reasonably required for the use of that dwellinghouse, then it is covered of course by the generality of this subsection.
Accordingly, I have to say that I think this is an important explanatory feature of what articles are to be regarded as exempt from poinding. If some article is taken, apart from the refrigerator, the freezer or the like, it is always open to the debtor to apply for release from the poinding of that article on the grounds of undue harshness under Clause 23. So there is still a further step open.
I think that far from being of value to those whose articles are likely to be poinded, this amendment does not make plain that the refrigerator is in a very special position apart from other equipment which can be used for storing food and to which particular attention must be paid before it can be taken from the dwelling-house. For all these reasons I must recommend to the Committee that this amendment should not be accepted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I could ask him whether this is suggesting that if somebody has a deep freeze which he regards as essential in the country and which I do not, he cannot have a fridge? Milk cannot be put in a deep-freeze.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I am saying that under this the refrigerator would be exempt, but if in addition it can be shown that the freezer was reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse in addition to the refrigerator, then that also may be exempt. It is simply the way in which this clause is framed. It starts by saying,
"The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt".
The articles which are to be exempt are equipment used for storing food, including not more than one refrigerator. But "equipment used for storing food" may also include a deep-freeze. That is what I am saying.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I assume that the Lord Advocate appreciates that not only can you not put milk in the deep-freeze; you cannot put the champagne in it either?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I have put champagne quite successfully in the deep freeze. It has a remarkable effect; it cools it much more quickly than if it is put in the refrigerator! From their expressions, I am glad that other noble Lords have had the same experience as myself. I am not suggesting that simply because of that I can necessarily say that in my household the deepfreeze is reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of his household.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall not enter into the discussion between noble and learned Lords on the cooling qualities of deep-freezes on champagne nor whether champagne would qualify as food under

369
heading (k). I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite must look at it again. But it appears to me that if a freezer is, as it obviously is, an article used for storing food, the effect of paragraph (k) as drafted is that if there are a refrigerator and a deep-freeze you must get rid of one.
Because of the way the paragraph is drafted,
"including not more than one refrigerator",
with such little engineering knowledge as I possess, I should have thought that there is no doubt that a freezer is a refrigerator. It must be; it is the same sort of equipment with a different thermostat, no doubt. The expression,
"including not more than one refrigerator",
means that one of them has to go. Therefore if you have a fridge and a freezer, whether you have the freezer stocked with food or anything else, the freezer has to go or the fridge has to go, the way this is drafted. That really cannot be so. There can be situations in the country, as I think the whole Committee has accepted, where there may be the need for a freezer full of food.
There may well be a person who while employed has bought some meat or has stored some fruit or something of that nature. Three or four months later he loses his job or becomes disabled, somebody sues him and creates a poinding. What is to happen? A deep freeze full of food has the food taken out of it and possibly sold. In such circumstances it is no use saying, "You can go to the sheriff and make a complaint." The food may have thawed by the time he gets there. The matter needs looking at again.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not suggest that we will not look at this matter again in view of what noble Lords have said. I think that I have set out the Government's view, which is that one refrigerator should be regarded as an article exempt from poinding. It may be that there is more than one, but if they are reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse it could be included.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, is also a lawyer. If he is going to suggest that there could be any dubiety about the matter, I am happy to consider what is said. I hope that I have made the Government's view of this matter clear.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think that there is a dubiety when one reads subsection (2), in full, with (k). However reasonable the freezer may be, it may have to go. I do not think that this is what the Government want and therefore they may have to look at the wording again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert—
("(p) tools reasonably required for household use.")
The noble Lord said: Some Members of this place who are not in the Chamber at the moment are anxious that we should proceed quickly. I understand that the amendment, although not properly drafted, is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am happy to consider this matter and come back on Report with an amendment to cover the point being made.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Invalidity, cessation and recall of poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 38, leave out ("the poinding to be void") and insert ("that to be the case").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to produce consistency of wording within subsection (1) and with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill. I can expand on that if the Committee wishes, but otherwise I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Duration of poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 18, leave out from ("above") to end of line 19 and insert—
("(i) if the application is made on the ground referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection, the poinding shall, if the date of disposal of the application is later than 14 days before the poinding is due to expire, continue to have effect until 14 days after that disposal;
(ii) in any other case, the poinding shall continue to have effect until the disposal of the application;").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to secure that poinding can continue in effect for 14 days after the sheriff has refused an application for an extension of the duration of that poinding.
The amendment follows discussions with the Law Society of Scotland. It is to secure the position of a creditor, in cases where an extension of poinding is refused, who would otherwise, as the Bill presently stands, be unable to take any further steps in his diligence even though the debtor has defaulted in the payment agreement between them. In addition, debtors would be placed at a disadvantage since creditors may not so readily enter into long-term payment agreements and then press on to do diligence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 32 [Location of sale]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 25, line 28, leave out ("any one") and insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: This clause relates to the possibility of warrant sales taking place in places, including the debtor's household, with the consent of the occupier. Subsection (6) states:
"In this section 'occupier', in relation to premises where there are 2 or more occupiers, means any one of them.".
That raises the difficulty that there may be three occupiers or a husband and wife who are not getting on. One of them agrees and the other disagrees. The amendment seeks to deal with that situation by taking out "any one" and inserting "all of them" so that if there are multiple occupiers, there must be the consent of all the occupiers if this rather unusual circumstance is to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am not entirely persuaded that it is necessary to obtain the consent of all the occupiers, but I see that there is a problem over what is meant by the term "occupier". I should like to look at that matter and take account of what the noble Lord has said. With that undertaking, he may wish to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am certainly encouraged by that reply. It may be that the way to deal with the problem is to have a rather more radical revision of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Payment agreements after warrant of sale]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 28, line 25, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is to remove part of Clause 36 which on further consideration is now thought to be unnecessary, the provision not being required. Unless the Committee wishes a further explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I in no sense oppose the amendment, which I think is entirely proper. I am just taking advantage of the opportunity to say that I and those on this side of the Committee have no objection to the numerous amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord which follow. I hope that that will be of assistance in getting through the business.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [The warrant sale]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 29, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (10) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 91 and 92. These amendments are all to remedy a defect
372
in the Bill in situations where poinded goods are damaged and revalued accordingly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 29, line 35, at end insert—
("(10) Where—

(a) any damaged article has been revalued under section 20(4) of this Act on the authority of the sheriff given under section 29(2) of this Act;

(b) the damage was not caused by the fault of the debtor; and

(c) no order has been made under section 29(3) of this Act requiring a third party to consign a sum in respect of the article, or such an order has been made but has not been complied with,

the amount credited to the debtor under subsection (9) above shall be an amount equal to the original valuation and not the revaluation referred to in paragraph (a) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Certain proceedings under Part II to postpone further steps in the diligence]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("in breach of a poinding") and insert ("without consent or authority").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. These are technical amendments which make changes in the wording to achieve consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Conjoining of further poinding with original poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 34, line 43, leave out ("and 30(2)(a)(i)") and insert (", 30(2)(a)(i) and 35(2)(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to amend Clause 43(4) so as to include a further reference to Clause 35 dealing with invalidity and cessation of poindings. The effect is to separate the defects of one poinding from another poinding with which it is conjoined. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [General effect of earnings arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
Page 36, leave out lines 1 to 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have reconsidered this amendment. I do not propose to move it at this time because I should prefer to bring forward an amendment later to make it clear that

373
Clause 47(2) is subject to the provisions of Clause 90(2), which disapplies the requirement for a charge in cases where the diligence follows on a summary warrant. It is much easier that that reference should appear in this clause, as the effect of this amendment would otherwise have been to remove the subsection altogether. The reader of the Act would then have to go to Clause 90 before he had any hint of this difficulty.
With that explanation, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [General effect of current maintenance arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 39, line 40, leave out ("operation") and insert ("effect")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 56. These are purely technical changes of wording. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Deduction from net earnings to be made by employer]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 40, line 34, leave out ("65A( 1A)") and insert ("65(1A)")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 60. These are technical amendments to correct a reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Effect of new maintenance order on current maintenance arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 42, line 31, after ("divorce") insert ("or on the granting of a declarator of nullity of marriage")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to make reference to periodic allowance payable on declarator person of nullity of marriage following the passage of the Family Law (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Failure to comply with arrestment, manner of payment and creditor's duty when arrestment ceases to have effect]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
("(5) Where an event mentioned in subsection (4) above occurs, any sum paid by an employer—")
The noble and learned Lord said: This clarifies the position on overpayments when an arrestment ends. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Priority among arrestments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 44, line 16, leave out from ("effect") to ("the") in line 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 54. These amendments are necessary to ensure that employers can give creditors who have been prevented from serving an arrestment details of all the arrestments in effect against the relevant debtor's earnings and not just details of the arrestment which prevented the new creditor from executing his. This will help the sheriff clerk to set up a conjoined arrestment order if the new creditor applies for one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("the first arrestment") and insert ("any other earnings arrestment or current maintenance arrestment in effect against the earnings of the same debtor payable by the same employer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Amount recoverable under conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 46, line 18, leave out ("or current maintenance arrestment schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to remove an erroneous reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 46, line 26, leave out ("operation") and insert ("effect").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 46, line 33, after ("arrestment") insert ("schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 58. These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 46, line 34, after ("arrestment") insert ("schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Relationship of conjoined arrestment order with earnings and current maintenance arrestments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 47, line 9, leave out ("such service") and insert ("the service of a copy of the conjoined arrestment order on him under section 60(7) of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to clarify a reference to "service". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Sum payable by employer under conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 48, line 37, leave out ("65A( 1A)") and insert ("65(1A)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Operation of conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 50, line 2, leave out from ("him") to end of line 5 and insert ("to the creditors whose debts are being enforced by the conjoined arrestment order in accordance with Schedule 3 to this Act or, if there are no such creditors, shall be paid to the debtor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This gives further guidance to sheriff clerks as to how to disburse sums recovered from a creditor which were wrongly paid to him under a conjoined arrestment order after some of the debts in the order have dropped out or the order itself has ceased. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Recall and variation of conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("(4) or (6)").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 63. This provides that orders under Clause 66 excluding a debt for maintenance obligation from a conjoined arrestment order will come into effect seven days after their service on the employer. This brings these orders into line with orders under Clause 60(2), which makes a conjoined arrestment order, and under Clause 62(5), which adds a debt or maintenance obligation to a conjoined arrestment order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 51, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (4) or (6) above shall come into effect 7 days after a copy of the order has been served on the employer under subsection (7) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Execution and service of copies]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("or copy thereon").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes the reference in Clause 70(3) to service of a copy of an arrestment schedule on the debtor. As failure to serve or intimate a copy of the schedule to the debtor does not render the arrestment invalid, there is no need to make specific provision for the form of such service or intimation on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 53, line 27, leave out from first ("service") to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that hand service of an arrestment schedule on the employer will be in the standard form; that is, the officer serving or intimating may be accompanied by a witness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 66:Page 53, line 32, leave out from ("the") to second ("a") in line 33 and insert ("service of an earnings arrestment schedule, a current maintenance arrestment schedule or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 67. These amendments apply to the provisions of Clause 17(1) to service of an earnings arrestment or current maintenance arrestment schedule rather than to execution. Thus Clause 17(1) will apply to unsuccessful service, as well as to service which created an arrestment, and creditors and officers of court will be clear on what days they may or may not serve an arrestment schedule.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("execution or").
On Question, amendment ageed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 54, line 26, leave out from ("books") to end of line 30 and insert—

("(b) a summary warrant, a warrant for civil diligence or a bill protested for non-payment by a notary public;

(c) an order or determination which by virtue of any enactment is enforceable as if it were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff;

(d) a civil judgment granted outside Scotland by a court, tribunal or arbiter which by virtue of any enactment or rule of law is enforceable in Scotland; or

(e) a document or settlement which by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 13 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 is enforceable in Scotland,

on which, or on an extract of which,")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to clarify the definition of "decree or other document" in this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 55, line 8, after ("fine") insert ("or any sum due under an order of court in criminal proceedings")
The noble and learned Lord said: Again this is to make clear the definition of ordinary debt in this clause using the formula of the definition of debt in Clause 15(3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Inspection of work]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 59, line 43, after ("inspection") insert (", enquiry")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to amend the clause to enable a person appointed to inspect the work of an officer of court to claim payment for his work in connection with inquiries into extra official activities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Collection of statistics from officers of court]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 64, line 14, after ("or) insert ("officers of court or")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment secures that any publication of statistical information does not identify officers of court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Appeals]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 73, leave out line 21 and insert—
("(c) section 24(1) except in so far as it relates to orders declaring that a poinding is invalid or has ceased to have effect;
( ) section 24(3);")
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to secure that an order under Clause 24(1) declaring a poinding to be invalid or to have ceased to have effect will have immediate effect in the same way as similar orders under Clauses 50(1) and 55(1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Amendment No. 73:
Page 75, line 34, leave out ("section 76 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is to secure that Clause 76 will not come into force on Royal Assent but will do so on a day to be appointed by the Lord Advocate. It deals with the establishment of an advisory council. It is therefore appropriate that it should be taken out of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Recovery of rates and taxes etc.]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 85, line 32, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 85, line 33, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 85, line 36, leave out ("by") and insert ("from").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 78, 83 and 85. These amendments reflect current Customs and Excise terminology that taxes are due "from" a taxpayer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("that") to ("him") in line 39 and insert ("payment of the amount due from each such person has been demanded from").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move. I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 85, line 40, after ("due") insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:
Page 86, line 14, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 86, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
("(7) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision for anything which the Commissioners may do under sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) above to be done by an officer of the Commissioners holding such rank as the regulations may specify.".").
Page 86, line 25, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 86, line 26, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 86, line 28, leave out ("by") and insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 86, line 30, leave out from ("that") to ("him") in line 32 and insert ("payment of the amount due from each such person has been demanded from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 86, line 33, after ("due") insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 87, line 10, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 87, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
("(9) The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for anything which the Commissioners may do under subparagraphs (5) to (8) above to be done by an officer of the Commissioners holding such rank as the regulations may specify.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Poindings and sales in pursuance of summary warrants]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 98, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 98, line 27, at end insert—
("(8) Where—

(a) any damaged article has been revalued under paragraph 5(4) above on the authority of the sheriff given under paragraph 13(2) above;

(b) the damage was not caused by the fault of the debtor; and

(c) no order has been made under paragraph 13(3) above requiring a third party to consign a sum in respect of the article, or such an order has been made but has not been complied with,

the amount credited to the debtor under sub-paragraph (7) above shall be an amount equal to the original valuation and not the revaluation referred to in paragraph (a) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 100, line 41, leave out ("10") and insert ("11").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 101, line 3, leave out ("in breach of a poinding") and insert ("with consent or authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 102, line 39, leave out ("an officer of court") and insert ("a sheriff officer").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 104, line 3, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 5 and insert ("Commissioners of Customs and Excise;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
("(f) in subsection (7A) for the words "distress is levied" there shall be substituted the words "things are taken into possession" and for the word "distress" where second occurring there shall be substituted the words "taking into possession".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 109, line 10, leave out ("by the debtor").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment amends Schedule 6, paragraph 28. The effect is in paragraph 24 of Schedule 7 to the Bankruptcy Act 1985 to remove the restriction that redemption can

381
only be by the debtor. Thus redemption by third parties under Clause 41(3)(a) will also be attracted. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no objection to this amendment. However, it appears to be wrong in that, by my counting, it is not on line 10 but on line 18. Something has gone wrong with the numbering of the lines on the side of the page. I hope that I have it in the correct place and therefore I have no objection to the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am in some difficulty because I have already moved this amendment. It being moved, I cannot withdraw it, but in the circumstances I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Territorial Sea Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Territorial Sea Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is about the limits of the territorial sea around and near the United Kingdom. I hope that when I have explained its purpose and contents, your Lordships will agree that, though short, it is a useful Bill.
The traditional position of the United Kingdom has been that the territorial sea of a state has a breadth of only three nautical miles. I shall not go into the history of this particular position—even if this deprives the House of some discussion of the picturesque background, including the supposed origin of the three miles as the distance that a cannon shot fired from the coast would carry.
However, even when support of the three-mile rule was at its strongest, a significant number of states asserted claims to a wider limit. International practice has now moved on. The majority of countries, if not all, including all our major allies, now either claim a territorial sea of 12 miles for themselves or recognise the territorial sea of 12 miles established by other countries. We had hoped to make this change ourselves in the context of a generally acceptable UN Law of the Sea convention, but this has not proved possible.
Another, though less important, factor has led to the introduction of this Bill. This is the Channel tunnel, on which a Bill is already before the House. The two matters are not dependent on each other. But it would be convenient if work on the tunnel throughout its
382
length took place within the limits of the territorial sea of one or the other of the two states involved, and if the legal status of each section of the tunnel were the same.
The main purpose of the present Bill is therefore to extend the breadth of the territorial sea from three to 12 miles. Legislation which applies in the three-mile territorial sea will in general apply over the wider 12-mile belt created by the extension. Owners and masters of vessels, whatever the flag, who discharge oil into the extended territorial sea, or who infringe traffic separation schemes in that extended area, would be open to prosecution in UK ports. The power to hold casualty inquiries on shipping accidents giving rise to oil pollution and the power to give directions in the cases of shipping accidents would extend more widely. Pirate broacasting from within 12 miles could he made the subject of prosecutions. Arrests for smuggling could be made further out.
For obvious reasons we cannot claim a full breadth of 12 miles in the Channel, where England and France lie closer than 24 miles apart. We are in touch with the French authorities about this and have in mind the making of an Order in Council, which this Bill authorises. This would establish, as the limit of the territorial sea, the line alreay agreed in 1982 as the boundary on the continental shelf.
We also have had to consider the position of straits. With a territorial sea of only three miles, there is a stretch of high seas through most straits, though not all. If the territorial sea is extended to 12 miles, many more straits—including some of the most important, such as the Straits of Dover, Hormuz in the Gulf, and Bab el Mandeb in the Red Sea—would be brought within the territorial sea of the neighbouring countries.
For this reason, it has been recognised in state practice, international negotiations and the case law of the International Court that a special regime for navigation is appropriate in straits. This is not so of course where a strait lies between an island and a mainland, and there is a convenient alternative route outside the island.
International law and practice have now developed to the point where, if the United Kingdom extends to 12 miles, we should afford to others the essential rights in some internationally important straits for which there is no alternative route; namely, the Straits of Dover, the North Channel lying between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the passage between Shetland and Orkney. These rights, which are widely recognised as necessary, include: a right of unimpeded passage through such straits for merchant vessels and warships; a right of overflight; the right of submarines to pass through the straits submerged; and appropriate safeguards for the security and other interests of the coastal state.
In other straits used for international navigation, such as the Pentland Firth south of Orkney and the passage between the Scilly Isles and the mainland of Cornwall, as in other parts of the territorial sea, a right of innocent passage will continue to exist in accordance with the practice of states.
I now turn to even more technical matters. But, before I go any further, it may be helpful to set out the legal character of the territorial sea. It is a belt of waters adjacent to the coast within which a coastal state

383
enjoys sovereignty. This sovereignty must be exercised in a manner which respects certain rights for the benefit of other states, notably the right of innocent passage for vessels passing through the territorial sea. I should add that "territorial sea"—the more modern term—and "territorial waters" have the same meaning and are interchangeable.
So far I have concentrated on the outer limit of the territorial sea which we propose should be extended to 12 miles. But there are also inner shoreward limits from which its breadth, whether three or 12 miles, is measured. These inner limits are technically known as "baselines". The normal baseline is the low water mark. But there are special rules for drying sandbanks, bays and fringes of islands. At present the baselines around the United Kingdom are established by Orders in Council mentioned in the Bill and made under the prerogative in 1964 and 1979. In future if this Bill is approved, orders establishing baselines for the territorial sea would have a statutory basis, as would existing Orders which up to now have been based on the Royal Prerogative.
Several provisions in the Bill simply adapt existing references in other legislation to fit with the new proposed 12 mile territorial sea. Others cover cases where legislation applying at present, for example, out to three miles need not or ought not he extended automatically to 12 miles.
This will be more conveniently explained by turning now to summarise the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill extends from three to 12 nautical miles the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom. It authorises the establishment of another limit by Order in Council. It provides that, subject to the Bill, the new limits shall apply generally to other enactments and instruments.
Clause 1 also provides that the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured may be established in future by Order in Council; it gives effect under the Bill to existing Orders in Council made under the Royal Prerogative; and provides for certain legal certificates as to the location of these baselines.
Clause 2 preserves, despite the extension of the territorial sea, the present operation of any local Acts or the present limits of existing jurisdiction of any harbour authority or port health authority. These do not require automatic extension. Some provisions relating to coal and regulations and licences for petroleum exploration and exploitation now in force, which apply satisactorily already both in the three mile territorial sea and outside it on the continental shelf, are not to be effected.
Clause 3, which must be read with Schedules 1 and 2, makes minor and consequential amendments and repeals in existing legislation. These are thought appropriate in certain fields of legislation because the territorial sea is in general to be extended to twelve miles by virtue of Clause 1. For example, certain revenue statutes, when dealing with measures against smuggling, refer expressly to "three miles"; so do the statutes which applies the criminal law generally in the territorial sea. In future they would refer simply to the territorial sea or territorial waters, thus attracting the general extension to twelve miles made by the Bill.
384
There are also powers, by Order in Council, first, to make amendments to other Acts of Parliament similar to those in Schedule 1: secondly, to extend, when the need arises, the areas where marine nature reserves may be established; and, thirdly, to alter the effect of Orders in Council designating areas outside the territorial sea where certain rights are exercised on the Continental shelf.
Clause 4 provides for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill, and includes provision authorising the making of Orders in Council extending the provisions of the Bill to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, subject to any necessary exceptions, adaptations or modifications.
This is a technical Bill and I have tried to explain its purpose to your Lordships. I hope that this explanation will have been helpful. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Young.)
6.55 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very
grateful to the noble Baroness for the clear explanatory speech with which she opened this debate. This is an important Bill and is of great historical interest, especially to a maritime nation like ours. The emphasis on the so-called territorial sea as the House will recall became significant with the birth of territoriality in the 16th century. There were great debates between Grotius and people such as John Selden in this country, who supported closed seas. They all accepted that coastal states enjoyed some rights to regulate activities in the waters adjacent to their own coasts. Grotius did not argue that all seas were open to use by everybody. There were complicated arguments in subsequent years about property rights and jurisdictional rights in these waters and whether or not a coastal state had sovereignty over the coastal belt. On the whole, the principle that ships of all states enjoyed the right of innocent passage throughout the territorial sea has been observed for about 200 years.
The authorities on this complicated subject have found that two matters still remain unresolved; namely, the question of the width of the territorial sea and further the question of the precise juridical nature of coastal states' rights over the territorial sea.
The British view was that there was a belt of maritime territory surrounding these islands, although France and Spain did not agree. They held that there was merely jurisdictional competence for purposes such as defence and fishing.
It would be wrong to leave this debate without mentioning the famous "Franconia" case of 1876 (R. v Keyn). Captain Keyn was the Commander of the German ship "Franconia" which collided with the British ship "Strathclyde" two and a half miles off Dover causing the death of 38 of the Strathclyde passengers.
Captain Keyn was prosecuted for manslaughter in an English court and found guilty. He appealed on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was a foreigner and at the material time sailing on a foreign ship on the high seas. The Crown

385
maintained that the collision had occurred within three miles of the coast within the realm, and so within British jurisdiction.
There was great argument at the time, but the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (to the surprise of the British Government of the day) allowed the appeal. The court's view ( a majority view) was that British jurisidiction did not extend to foreigners and foreign ships beyond British shores. All this resulted in the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 which reaffirmed the rightful jurisdiction of the Crown over territorial waters which were deemed by international law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty.
But the doubts concerning the juridical nature of the territorial sea have continued for several years. It is on the jurisdictional point as opposed to the sovereignty point that the argument has always centred. This was not finally settled until the Hague Conference of 1930 since when the sovereignty doctrine has been generally accepted. It is a curious fact that the relevant seabed and the airspace above has tended to be considered separately. Perhaps the noble Baroness can comment on that matter and whether or not it has any validity in relation to this Bill.
The House will know that throughout history the question of the width of the territorial seas has been a question of controversy. Different criteria were applied such as the limits of visibility—that was not taken very seriously. The noble Baroness also mentioned the length of a cannon shot. The three-mile limit gained widespread acceptance over the turn of the last century and in spite of all the differences of view this country has adhered more strongly to the three-mile limit than any other country. For example, as recently as the 1960s a statement was issued saying:
"Her Majesty's Government are obliged to place firmly on the record that they do not recognise territorial jurisdiction over waters outside the limit of three miles from the coast.
In their book The Law of the Sea two experts: R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowes made an interesting point as follows:
"it is meaningless to speak of a single limit for territorial sea claims existing at any one time. Between the three-mile states, the three—mile rule operated; between states claiming, say, six miles that distance was recognised."
There has always been keen international argument. When the first and second United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea tried to agree on a limit in 1958 and 1960, they failed to come to any agreement.
The noble Baroness has very rightly pointed out that the purpose of the Bill is to bring us in line with other countries which have a 12-mile limit. We know that different groups of countries seek to observe different limits and we shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she can give us an up to date list of those who observe the three-mile, the four-mile, the six-mile, 12 mile and more than 12 mile-limits when she comes to wind up later. Perhaps she can also comment on the extension to far greater distances in respect of pollution about which many noble Lords are concerned, and of course in relation to fishing as well.
As I said, the strongest argument in favour of the Bill is that the general trend in state practice is to set the limit of territorial waters at 12 miles. This was the decision of the Law of the Sea Convention, and there
386
is every reasonable expectation that all states will in due course come into line with this limit. I make that optimistic forecast in the hope that the noble Baroness will agree with it when she comes to wind up.
There is one important legal implication to this development: namely, the duties which the state in question owes to foreign vessels in its territorial waters. With this Bill we shall be assuming those obligations in a more extensive area of sea. I shall not go into detail but merely quote what Judge Fitzmaurice said in the fisheries jurisdiction case in 1973. The learned judge then said:
"The territorial seas involve responsibilities as well as rights…for example policing and maintaining order; buoying and marking channels and reefs, sandbanks and other obstacles; keeping navigable channels clear and giving notice of danger of navigation, providing rescue services, lighthouses, lightships, bellbuoys and so on".
That is quite a considerable range of duties.
I turn briefly to the question of delimitation between two states facing each other. The normal practice, as the House knows, is to agree on the median line as the boundary. I assume that this will be the position with France, which in the context of this Bill is the only state concerned. This has a special significance for the Channel tunnel project, and we noted with interest what the noble Baroness said about that.
The noble Baroness also mentioned a number of straits around these islands. I would add that the position of offshore islands can be a complication, and we should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain how the Channel Islands will be affected in practice. Presumably the object will be to agree with France a median line between their coasts and the French mainland, which is very close.
I do not know whether there have been discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on this point. If there have, it would be interesting to know the results before the end of the debate. Can the noble Baroness say whether there are any implications for any other country in this apart from France—that is to say, any of our partners in the European Community?
When we debate a Bill connected with the sea, over 2,000 years of British history loom over this Chamber and the temptation, in view of its importance and fascination, is for us to embark in several directions, and that would take far too long. I believe that we have a duty to work out a consistent and organised policy on the resources of the sea as a whole, something I fear that successive governments of all complexions over a long period have failed to do.
We are conscious of the decline in areas where our country was pre—eminent—in shipping, shipbuilding and fisheries—although we must set against that the brilliant successes in the offshore oil industry. We must re-examine our record in the protection of the marine enviroment, and here there is a good deal to be proud of. I should be grateful to the noble Baroness if she could tell the House in this context why the area for marine nature reserves is not now automatically extended by this Bill.
There is also a great deal of concern about our failure to sign the Law of the Sea Convention, as the noble Baroness and the House are aware, but this is

387
something we can come back to again. I have two other brief questions for the noble Baroness if she will be kind enough to deal with them. First, can she say whether the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 will apply in the wider limit of the territorial sea; and, further, can she explain why it is inappropriate to extend harbour lights automatically? The House will be aware that this is a matter of concern in some quarters.
This Bill is a sensible and necessary measure, and we support it. It gives us the opportunity to look to the sea again and to make the British people conscious of their heritage of the sea. It is on the seas that we have excelled, and it may well be that our economic and industrial salvation lies in concentrating upon our maritime resources and the related age-old skills.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we too welcome this Bill. In point of fact I cannot remember how long I have been asking the Government to introduce such a Bill—certainly for 15 years, and possibly more. And so we see eye to eye with the Labour Party on that point. We also see eye to eye with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the importance of going on from this Bill to think out and introduce a proper general maritime policy, which this country so sadly lacks, and a general sea-use management policy which should be part of that.
The Minister of State told us a part of what, in the mind of the Government, was going to be the advantage of having this Bill and how they plan to use it. I should like to ask one or two other questions on which perhaps the noble Baroness could fill out if she is able to get the answer in time. If not, we can try by probing amendments later.
First, what international law do the Government propose to adhere to, he guided by and enforce in the new and enlarged territorial sea? The Minister of State said that it had not been possible for us to adhere to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention of 1982. Of course it was perfectly possible, but we chose not to. We chose to go along with President Reagan and one or two other countries only in the whole world and not adhere to it because of some presumed penalisation of the wealthy by the poor which was hidden in its provisions.
One cannot let the opportunity go by of saying, "Come on, hurry up. Think again. Join it like the rest of civilised mankind. It is obviously just". Do the Government in the meantime, before they have done the right thing about the UNCLOS Convention, propose to recognise, enforce and be guided by its provisions on their rights and duties in the territorial sea or by those of the 1958 convention? Whatever the Government say—and they have said some pretty dubious things—the 1958 convention is different from the 1982 convention. There are various points on which they flatly contradict one another.
The amount of state practice which the Government say absolves them from the need to choose which they believe in—state practice is otherwise known as the habit of breaking conventions, which is fairly widespread among signatories—does
388
not in fact absolve them from saying what law it is they will enforce in the new territorial sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke—and I am glad he did—of the duties which the declaration of new territorial sea areas imposed on this country. What are they?What will the Government do about their duties? To what duties will they give priority in this large new area for which they are now responsible?
There are one or two more detailed questions. We have had a word about the Channel Islands. What is the Government's intention about Rockall? Will they be declaring the 12-mile territorial waters around Rockall? The implications of this matter are fairly well known to all. We already have a continental shelf around it and that has landed us in a lot of trouble with Ireland, Iceland and I think even Denmark. Shall we be going further? I would say in advance of hearing the Government's view that we should. That is, if you have a rock which is technically part of your territory, it can only be the right thing to do to draw the natural conclusion.
The Bill applies to the United Kingdom only. What about colonial dependencies in the future? Will they, through the governments of the colonial dependencies, introduce the 12-mile limit for them? More questions please about what they are going to do with their rights. How are they going to exercise their rights within these waters round our own shores?
What about the Soviet electronic listening trawlers which have been stationed three-and-a-half miles off Clydemouth for about the last 20 years? Will they be given the shove now? It would seem a very happy occasion to do so. What about the Soviet fishing factory vessels which come at certain times of the year and sit three and a half miles off Cornwall to which the so-called Klondikers from Scotland and the North of England sell their Cornish fish catches without ever touching the shores of Cornwall? Will the opportunity be taken to give them a shove further out? I think that the espionage trawlers at Clydemouth—I am not sure how this works on the map, perhaps the noble Baroness can say—could be shoved right away out of sight. Is there enough water there for them to hang around even at 12 miles without hitting water from Northern Ireland or from some of the Scottish islands?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I must point out that the foreign Klondikers who come to Scotland lie well inshore at Ullapool and they have no problems at all. They are welcomed to our waters and are an alternative market for our fishermen.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to Soviet factory ships lying off Scotland. Is that right? I did not refer to them: I referred to Soviet factory ships lying off Cornwall, where there seems to be more agitation among the Cornish fishermen. Obviously it depends whether they are welcome to the British fishermen concerned.
What is the relationship of this Bill with the Pilotage Bill which is still before Parliament? There are those in the maritime world who wish that the Government had said that this Bill was coming before they launched the Pilotage Bill in Parliament. Will it make any difference to what is being provided for?

389
The Pilotage Bill provides for the retreat of Government control over pilotage in this country and its devolution, as it were, into the hands of the port authorities. Will the increased territorial water affect that in any way? Will it make it a Government responsibility to provide for the provision of pilotage further out? Will there be any change?
There are one or two details I wish to raise on the text of the Bill. Anything that the Minister of State can explain now will save time at Committee stage by way of probing amendments. Clause 1(2) states:
"Her Majesty ma) …provide that any part of the territorial sea …shall extend to such line other than that provided for by subsection ( 1)"
which is 12 miles. So, by order in council, the Government may make any other line than 12 miles. Does this mean they can make a line beyond 12 miles—for example, to 200 miles as some states now do—by Order in council without further legislation? If it does—as I think it does—do the Government intend at a later date to do anything like that, not necessarily in the United Kingdom but perhaps from the dependencies, perhaps Rockall?
Clause 3(3) allows that, by Order in Council, the Government may make modifications of an order in council which has been introduced under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. What sort of modifications to Continental Shelf Act orders do the Government have in mind in giving themselves this power in the Bill? Later, I note that there is specific provision to enlarge the territorial waters of the Channel Islands, which we would expect, and of the Isle of Man. Why is that delayed, so to speak? Why is that a separate issue in the Bill? Why is the power not taken immediately without putting it downhill into a later order?
Lastly, the noble Baroness spoke about "international straits", which go through what would otherwise be British territorial sea on both sides. She gave some examples. I think I have that right. There are other straits used by shipping which go through British territorial waters on both sides. I am thinking particularly of the Minch, which she did not mention. It would help the House to understand these complicated matters if she could say in a word, if that is not an ambitious request, what will be the difference between a strait which the Government are calling an international strait—although they need not do so because it is only 24 miles wide between one bit of Britain and another—and a strait which they are not calling an international strait but which is otherwise geographically and navigationally similar.
We welcome the Bill. The questions that I have put are meant to be helpful.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I had the privilege of being in the United Nations when the Law of the Sea Convention was being debated and when the United States announced its decision not to participate in that convention. It was a sad occasion for most of those who were present. It may seem churlish to refer to the many years that so many people have been pressing for the extension of the limit of territorial seas to 12 miles when the decision that is so much to be welcomed has
390
now been made. My own concern primarily arises from the study we made of marine oil pollution when the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution studied that subject and reported in 1981. It recommended strongly that this limit be adopted. Even at that time, over 100 states, including major maritime nations such as Japan, the USSR, France and Italy, already claimed territorial seas of 12 miles or more.
I do not believe that the extension of United Kingdom territorial waters will of itself markedly reduce pollution offences. The extension now proposed would extend the area in which offences committed by foreign vessels would be subject to prosecution under our own national law. It would extend the area in which pollution incidents occur in respect of which compensation could be claimed for damage caused. Perhaps most important it would extend the area over which the United Kingdom would have powers to intervene in shipping incidents which pose a pollution threat to our coasts.
International conventions make some provision under which a coastal state can take action to protect its coastline against oil pollution threatened by a shipping casualty outside its territorial waters. Somewhat similar provisions now apply also to chemicals. The difficulty is that the coastal state may intervene only after a casualty has occurred and where there is a grave and imminent danger of pollution to its coastline or territorial waters. The coastal state may take such action only as is necessary to avoid the pollution danger and must consult the flag state of the vessel concerned.
For all these reasons, an extension of the territorial waters to a limit of 12 miles is much to be welcomed. There is however a further point which deserves to be mentioned. It is important that the criteria for intervention when a ship gets into trouble in territorial waters should be clearly established. For example, there was the case of the "Athina B", a Greek owned vessel of about 3,500 dwt carrying a cargo of pumice which got into difficulties in bad weather close to Shoreham harbour. She was carrying 300 tonnes of bunker oil. A tug was quickly on the scene but returned to harbour as terms of tow could not be agreed. The coastguard reported to the appropriate authorities, I understand, that taking into account the coastline, and the state of the weather and of the vessel, she would be driven onto Brighton beach in the space of about six hours. Intervention by the authorities in the light of this report was clearly required, but no action was taken, possibly in the mistaken belief that this was contrary to the ship's right of innocent passage in territorial waters, which surely could not apply to a disabled ship out of control and about to run aground.
Sure enough, the ship was driven on to Brighton beach, where she holed herself on a concrete groyne. In fact no oil pollution resulted. This, however, was a happy chance. Had the 300 tonnes of bunker oil been spilt it would have caused substantial pollution on one of England's premier beaches, which would have been difficult and costly to clean up. With the extension of territorial waters from three to 12 miles, it would seem that particular regard should be paid to tightening up the criteria for intervention where an incident of this kind occurs. The requisite powers to intervene exist.

391
There is one other point to which I would refer and it relates to lightening operations at sea; that is, the offloading of part of the cargo of a tanker to another vessel, usually to reduce its draft. One often sees such lightening operations taking place in Lyme Bay, within the three-mile limit, but quite a number of such operations take place outside the three-mile territorial limit but within 12 miles of the shore. Tankers lightening within the three-mile limit and subsequently proceeding to British ports are liable to prosecution if spillages occur. The ability of the UK authorities to proceed against vessels responsible for spills will be enhanced on extension of territorial seas to 12 miles.
I recognise that the appalling experience of major pollution incidents in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" have happily not been repeated around our shores in the last few years. There continue, however, to be less dramatic incidents giving rise to oil spills resulting both from accidents and from intentional and unlawful discharges. The extension to the 12-mile limit may, subject to the difficulties of detection of the source of the oil, help to limit pollution from these causes.
The economic malaise which has afflicted the shipping industry gives, I suggest, some cause for concern in the context of pollution. For instance, so far as I am aware, tanker fleets are not being renewed and the increasing use of flags of convenience seems likely to lead to less supervision of standards of the ships and their crews by the oil companies than existed previously. I fear therefore that it may be chance which has resulted in a substantial reduction in major pollution from tankers, because there is the experience of increasing trouble arising from accidents from bulk cargo carriers. These may themselves of course be carrying up to around 20,000 tonnes of bunker fuel, which can be difficult to clean up.
I do not believe, therefore, that we can afford to take a relaxed view of oil (or indeed chemical) pollution of the sea and of our territorial waters and coasts, as a result of the better experience we have had in this decade compared to the previous two. The extension of the territorial waters to 12 miles should certainly help us to meet trouble when it comes.
There is one question of a quite different character which I ask the Minister. It relates to the recognition of the 12-mile limit adopted by certain other states. As I understand, in the Gulf there are certain states which had, and have, a limit of three miles, and certain of those states extended their limit to 12 miles, but hitherto we have not recognised the validity of that extension. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can inform us about that.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for having introduced this Bill so clearly and concisely. Its appearance a few days ago constituted a break with centuries of tradition for this country, but it was a necessary break and a change which I welcome because the balance of advantage for Britain has changed.
392
As a leading maritime nation, Britain has in the past stood for freedom of navigation of the high seas throughout the world and has regarded the high seas as everything beyond a narrow coastal strip of three miles. As a mercantile nation as well as a maritime nation, we have certainly made good use of that freedom to sail the high seas throughout the world. It gives me pleasure to congratulate the Government on now bringing forward this Bill, because I have been encouraging them strongly to do so for several years. My noble friend has confirmed that one of the reasons for introducing the measure now is that it would be convenient from the point of view of the Channel tunnel.
I should like to ask her about timing. The Bill can be presumed, I think, to be enacted during the course of this year. Under Clause 4 different parts of it can be brought into force at different times. Can the Government give us any idea of whether it is intended that the main parts of the Bill should come into force soon after enactment?
Then I should like to ask about the position of the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for a list of countries which still recognise three miles and those which have extended to 12 miles. There are some who claim 100 or 200 miles of territorial waters. But my understanding is that the only nation of significance which still maintains a three-mile territorial sea is the United States. It would be helpful to know what their intentions are at the moment. Had the United States been prepared to accept the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, it would then have been part of its programme to recognise a 12-mile limit. But the United States has not, and so it would be useful to know the position there.
I would ask, arising from that, whether the Government now regard this change as customary law—that is to say, that it has been adopted or recognised by the large majority of maritime nations of the world—because that is the way in which fishing limits were extended in 1976 and 1977. Virtually all the maritime countries had agreed to an extension of fishing limits to 200 miles. That was also enshrined in the text of the convention, but without waiting for the convention to come into force the 200-mile fishing limit was adopted and we in your Lordships' House here gave the Bill a fair wind from the Opposition Front Bench in 1976 and 1977. Is this also to be regarded now as customary law in that way?
Are the Government satisfied that passage will be guaranteed through international straits in other parts of the world? So far there has been discussion about straits around our own country, like Dover, but it has in the past been important that we should be sure before we move from three to 12 miles that our vessels would be able to pass through straits such as Gibraltar, Malacca and Hormuz—straits which are less than 24 miles wide. The right of innocent passage we expect not only for merchant vessels but also for naval and military vessels, including aircraft and submerged submarines. Can my noble friend tell us anything about that which we ought to know?
Further have any transit passage regimes already been formulated in different parts of the world for such international straits or been put into effect? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the Minch in this

393
connection. I must tell him that the Minch has already been within the territorial sea of the United Kingdom, at three miles, because of the base lines. I do not think that a problem will arise because of this extension.
The reasons for the change must be that other countries have been enforcing their 12-mile jurisdiction upon our vessels and we have had to recognise that. We could not opt out. And yet there was no reciprocity while we were asserting only a three-mile territorial sea around the United Kingdom. This is especially true where the prevention of pollution was concerned.
We shall in the future be able to control the conduct of ships up to a distance of 12 miles from our coast. I shall not repeat what I have said before in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who spoke before me, took part in the debate I opened in March 1982 on the subject of the report of the Royal Commission on Pollution of the Sea, of which he was a member, and also an EC report. One of the Royal Commission's principal recommendations was that we should extend our territorial seas to 12 miles. The extension of United Kingdom jurisdiction should enable action to be taken against sources of pollution over a large area of sea or against threats of pollution of coastal waters as well as the coastline. In future, offenders should be brought to book more easily.
There has been welcome international acceptance in recent years of what is called port jurisdiction rather than flag jurisdiction—that is to say, rather than the home country or registration country being responsible for taking an offender to task. The combination of the extension of the territorial sea, quadrupling in this way the breadth of the territorial limit, and being able to act against an offender in a port of call will greatly help to deter those who deliberately cause pollution or who cause pollution through carelessness.
I am glad to see that the House will be asked later today to approve a Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order. That will give effect to measures internationally agreed to improve upon the provisions of the 1973 international convention. These improvements are helping to prevent pollution and we shall be better able to monitor and police those measures when this Bill has been enacted and has entered into force.
We shall also have much greater control of the traffic round the coasts of Britain in order to prevent collisions and investigate accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Rockall. I remind him that I was the Secretary of State who put this Bill through Parliament in 1972, confirming that Rockall was part of Scotland. It is an uninhabited island, although a certain Tom McLean showed that it could be inhabited for some weeks. However, the position of an uninhabited island is something which must be looked at. The claims of other countries are also subject to various conventions regarding the position of an uninhabited island. In this case, if it had a three-mile territorial limit around it, it ought to be a 12-mile limit in the future.
I suggest that the proposals in this Bill are not controversial and should not meet much opposition in either House of Parliament. In the 1983–84 Session I
394
offered to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to put forward a Bill of this kind as a Private Member's Bill. That was nearly accepted because the Government found it difficult to find time for a government Bill to fit into the rather heavy legislative programme at that time. I am glad to say that I am now no longer needed as a private pilot, and that is why I am particularly pleased that the Bill is coming forward today.
The reason that I made such an offer is that in the past I have been involved in these subjects, beginning in the Foreign Office in the late 1940s and then in the United Nations for three years after that. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is not here because I am reminded that he and I were working together with Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, who was mentioned earlier in the debate and who went on to become a judge in the International Court at The Hague, and Sir Eric Beckett, on our case in the Corfu Channel incident. I was then dealing with Eastern Europe. Two British warships had struck mines and more than 40 of our sailors were killed.
That kind of situation should now be eliminated. Everyone should know where international straits are, they should be designated and all nations should enjoy the right of free passage through them. I hope that the Bill will receive the full support it deserves.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Baroness the Minister is now realising the possibilities of this apparently simple piece of legislation. It interests me very much that all the Back-Bench speakers listed have been active in one or other of two organisations. The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Campbell of Croy, as well as myself, have all been officers on the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, are currently members of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, of which I was a member in 1981 when the Royal Commission reported on pollution of the sea. I think I can fairly claim to be the only one of the Back-Bench speakers who has been a member of both organisations. That accounts for my interest in the matter.
On the other hand, many of the vital points have already been made and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will take up the matter of marine nature reserves. I should be very much surprised if he did not. I shall therefore confine myself to some very brief remarks. I much regret that the two noble and learned Lords whose names appeared on the list of speakers have found themselves unable to be present at this time. That seems to me unfortunate because, as a piece of legislation, I find that this brief Bill reminds me very much of Alice through the Looking Glass. There is nothing in this Bill for which it is not also provided that it may be altered, removed, extended or changed, either by an Order in Council or by a certificate. It is the most astonishing method of legislating.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, drew attention to Clause 1(2). If we then look at Clause 1(5), we

395
find—and it is not very often we legislate in this way—that the section states:
"Any enactment or instrument which (whether passed or made before or after the coming into force of this section) contains a reference (however worded) to the territorial sea …shall be construed in accordance with this section and with any provision made, or having effect as if made, under this section".
It is a most curious way of dealing with this matter—but then of course I am not a lawyer. I should have thought that our colleagues would have enjoyed themselves in dealing with this Bill.
The main and very satisfactory purpose of the Bill is to extend the three-mile limit. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others have indicated, this is something we asked for quite vehemently in the report of the Royal Commission in 1981. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his other capacities well before that time, and, I think, every chairman of ACOPS that I know of, has asked for this extension on the grounds of the assistance it may give in dealing with pollution of the seas.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn suggested that the United Kingdom had adhered more strongly to the three-mile limit than any other maritime nation. I might fairly use the word "obstinately" in that connection. I do not wish to go into too much history but it did astonish me when I made inquiries about this subject to find that as recently as 1951 the United Kingdom actually took Norway to the International Court of Justice because Norway was endeavouring to enforce a four-mile limit. That seems to me a rather extravagant complaint on our part. In 1981 there were, according to the Royal Commission report, more than 100 states which were observing the 12-mile limit. Spain apparently adopted a six-mile limit at the end of the 18th century, Russia started using a 12-mile limit at the beginning of this century, and so on.
With the possible exception of the United States, we have been the slowest of any maritime country to recognise that the 12-mile limit makes sense. The reason for that has been touched on by preceding speakers. It is partly due to the fact that we are now much more of a coastal state than a maritime state. Our Merchant Navy has diminished with rapidity and even the Royal Navy is of less consequence than it was in earlier times. Therefore our balance of interests, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated, has changed.
I say not only personally but as someone still connected with ACOPS that I very much regret that Her Majesty's Government found it impossible even to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I know that there were moral arguments that we ought not to sign if we were not prepared to ratify everything contained therein, but it made a very unfortunate impression. I am glad that at least we are now taking this step in the right direction.
I am concerned about the pollution possibilities. It is certainly satisfactory that we should now be able to take into account offences within the wider area, 12 miles instead of the three miles. We still do not have adequate port state jurisdiction, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The fact that we can now operate within 12 miles does not by
396
any means put us in a position where we can take action as a port state over the areas outwith the 12 miles. I am well aware that the Paris memorandum of understanding of 1982 makes it possible for us to take action regarding the actual safety of ships if they call in our ports and their physical condition is not up to standard. But it does not mean that we can take action against pollution or other offences. I do not know whether the noble Baroness feels able to say anything about that.
I have just mentioned the marine nature reserves in which some of us are interested. It is quite astonishing that, as appears from the way in which Schedule 1(6) is drafted, we do not take it for granted that the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 referring to marine nature reserves should be effective within the 12 nautical miles. This schedule refers only to areas seaward of baselines up to a distance of three nautical miles.
I am well aware that the area which might be designated as marine nature reserves within that territorial area of even three nautical miles is not very large. We have trouble enough trying to designate any marine reserves within our existing waters. As we all know, Lundy is the only one that has so far been designated. I have had some brief discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council, which says that, while there is no immediate prospect of wishing to take action beyond the proposed three nautical miles, nobody knows what may happen in the future, when diving techniques may be further extended and we may wish to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us why one has to make this distinction between the proposed 12 nautical miles and the three nautical miles included in the schedule.
I do not wish to delay the House any further on this matter beyond indicating that the way in which the Bill is drafted caused me at least some surprise. Every single provision seems also to provide for its modification, withdrawal or extension. I cannot think of any other Bill that has so many let-outs for every one of its provisions. However, we would all wish to support its main intention to extend our territorial waters.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to echo the regret expressed a moment or two ago by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the 12-mile provision has not automatically been extended to encompass marine nature reserves. Whatever at present may be the intention or the wish to designate marine nature reserve areas, we must look forward to a time when they can be selected on genuine biological grounds, grounds whereby we can have regard to the natural topography of the seabed, the natural flow of currents, the natural quality of the sea waters and other characteristics, without the imposition of an artificial linear boundary of this nature which could be entirely disastrous in biological terms. I hope that we can have some assurances from my noble friend that she will look sympathetically at all possible opportunities to allow marine nature reserves to be established when they are finally created on genuine biological grounds.

397
The unfortunate consequences that can occur are illustrated by some of the regrettable incidents that have taken place, to the detriment of our cultural heritage rather than of our biological heritage, to which I now want to turn. My noble friend has had a great many questions thrown at her and I do not intend to add to that list. I wish to pick up and to emphasise rather more strongly than she did a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, concerning the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. I noticed that my noble friend said that the general legislation now applied to three-mile limits will automatically be extended to 12 miles. She also went to on say that some provisions need not or ought not be so extended.
On the Bill itself and in the explanatory memorandum, I see no mention in either category of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. This Act allows for some degree of archaeological control to be applied to the salvage of shipwrecks which are of special historical or archaeological significance. The Goodwin Sands at present lie astride the three-mile limit, and the extension of our territorial waters to 12 miles will therefore encompass what can only be described as the world's largest deposit of ancient vessels. Many of the wrecks on the Goodwin Sands are known by name. They are of historic date and the controlled excavation of these wrecks could be of immense importance. This same area can be expected to hold unknown wrecks of even more ancient date, extending back to the Roman period, the Phoenician period and still earlier, perhaps to the first efforts of man to navigate across the North Sea. This is an enormously rich ground for the wreck hunter.
The hunting of wrecks has become a growing activity lately and a growing menace to the preservation of our cultural heritage in this form. Operations are now on a scale far greater than they have been before and the operators are using machines, rather like giant underwater vacuum cleaners, that simply sweep up everything and destroy in so doing all opportunities for controlled archaeological excavation.
Moreover, these operators now have serious commercial backing. Large commercial concerns including international banking firms have supported wreck hunters, though not to a great extent yet in our own seas. Where there is money one expects pressures to be exerted. We already have before us the sorry example of the "Admiral Gardner", an important archaeological wreck for which protection was sought, but because it lay outside the three-mile limit it was lost and was therefore looted. At present certain matchboxes are available using coins from this wreck for advertising purposes. On the whole, that seems a deplorable misuse of something that could have been a controlled and informative excavation.
The wrecks which lie within what will be an extended territorial sea are part of our cultural heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to 2,000 years of British history. A lot of that, back into pre-history, lies there to be recovered; but it must be protected before the less reputable of the recoverers get to it. It would be deplorable if this cultural heritage was not protected as resolutely as are the ancient monuments on land. Therefore, I ask again in stronger
398
terms the question that has already been posed to my noble friend. What will be the position of the 1973 Act after our territorial waters are extended?
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate and, indeed, for the very wide welcome that this Bill has received from all parts of the House. As is only to be expected on this occasion, all those who have spoken have done so from a great wealth of personal knowledge on this subject. That has shown the importance and value of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said in the course of his remarks, I have been asked an enormous number of questions. I shall do my best to answer them but I can assure your Lordships that I shall carefully read Hansard tomorrow and if there are points which need to be followed up I shall do so.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his response to the Bill. He asked a number of questions. He first asked whether the sea bed and air space should be treated separately. The limit applies generally to the water, the sea bed and the air space. He also asked what are the territorial limits for a number of states. I have a complete table and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I send a copy of it to all who have spoken in this debate. However, for the moment I shall summarise. Fifteen states claim three miles, including incidentally the United States of America; two states claim four miles; 100 states claim 12 miles, and 21 states more than 21 miles. However, as I said, I shall circulate a full list to all those who have taken part in the debate so that they are in possession of the precise details.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, further asked about the line that had been agreed with France in the Straits of Dover and how it is to be drawn. This is a very technical matter which I suspect he, like myself, will need to look at very closely. However, my understanding is that on the Straits of Dover it is a simplified median line; that is, a median line which is constructed by a number of straight lines which follow the general line of the more complicated median line. I confirm that there are Community states other than France with whom a limitation of territorial sea will be necessary in the case of the Channel tunnel.
A number of speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, together with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, mentioned marine nature reserves. I understand very much the strength of feeling on this matter. The present priority, as I understand it, is to establish marine nature reserves in the existing three-mile territorial sea. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, properly said, Lundy was designated last year and further sites are being processed. Both Skomer and Menai are well advanced and we hope that they will be designated this year. Other sites such as Loch Sween, St. Abb's Head, Bardsey and the Scilly Isles are under consideration.
I was asked why the area for marine nature reserves is not automatically extended by this Bill. Our present priority is to establish marine nature reserves in the existing three-mile territorial sea. We do not yet have the scientific data we need to make a reliable

399
assessment of whether such reserves are also required between the three miles and the 12 miles. If we find that to be the case, Clause 3(2)(b) and (c) provide the necessary power by Order in Council to include such areas.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Would it not be simpler just to put the full 12 miles in the Bill now instead of having to do so later if required? What is the objection to that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding is that because we are at present in the process of establishing these marine nature reserves within the three-mile limit we do not yet have the scientific data available to make a reliable assessment of whether a marine nature reserve is needed between three and 12 miles. That is why the power is in the Bill to make such a reserve by Order in Council. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook also asked about maritime wrecks. I fully understand their concern and that of nautical historians and archaeologists. I confirm that the effect of the Bill is that the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 would automatically apply in the wider area of the territorial sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about harbour limits. There are already established procedures to extend, when necessary, the limits of harbour authorities. Where these limits are in a private Act, as is the usual case, such Acts have been passed after undergoing the Private Bill procedure, which enables local interests to present their viewpoints for the consideration of Parliament. Similarly, if limits are proposed to be changed by an order under the Harbours Act there is provision for a public inquiry, where again local interests can be represented.
These procedures provide safeguards for people whose interests might be affected by an extension of limits. We think it much better to leave these procedures to be applied if necessary rather than to make an automatic change through this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked a number of questions. I begin by dealing with his question about Rockall, because it gives me an opportunity to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that we were of course delighted to have him confirm that he was the man who made Rockall a part of Scotland by introducing the Bill. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it is a part of Scotland. It already has a territorial sea of three miles and under the Bill this will be automatically extended to 12 miles.
The noble Lord also referred to Clause 1(2) and asked whether the Government could make extensions by Order in Council of 200 miles, because that is contrary to international law. Clause 3(3) contains a power to alter the effect of orders designating areas of Continental Shelf because these will become territorial sea. I cannot see any other occasions for an Order in Council under the Bill amending the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to take up the noble Baroness on one point, because she did not answer my question about Clause 1(2) and the possibility of putting the line at the outside edge of the territorial sea further out than 12 miles. It would not have to be 200 miles—that is an extreme case—but is it open to the Government to draw it further out than 12 miles rather than closer in under that provision?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I understand it it would be possible but not by virtue of this Bill. I think that it would be something that could be done separately. If I am not correct on that point, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the competing claims of the 1958 and 1982 conventions. We are parties to the 1958 convention but the 1982 convention will not be in force even for the signatories. He also asked about the Minches. I think that that was a point that was answered by my noble friend Lord Campbell, but I can confirm that ships of foreign states enjoy innocent passage, but submarines would not be able to pass through the area except on the surface, and aircraft could not overfly, as they could, straits such as the Straits of Dover.
The noble Lord also asked about the dependent territories. I can confirm to him that the Bill does not apply to the dependancies.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it the Government's intention later on to introduce provisions through the governments of those dependencies to give them a 24-mile limit too?
Baroness Young: My Lords, under this Bill we do not intend to extend the provisions to the dependencies. That would require another Bill.
We all listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. We know his long experience in matters of the environment and the service that he has given on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He asked why the Government have not taken steps to control tanker lightening. The need to regulate transhipment and tanker lightening is recognised, but the detailed form that the necessary legislation might take is still under consideration. The noble Lord also asked, as did the noble Baroness, Lady White, how the extension to 12 miles might improve pollution control. We recognise the concern over marine pollution and have had very much in mind the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1981 to extend the territorial sea to deal with oil pollution.
This Bill or course is concerned with the limits of the territorial sea and not the actual regime there. However, it will strengthen our ability to control pollution. In particular, powers to prosecute under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983 will be automatically extended so that owners and masters of ships that discharge oil into the sea within the extended territorial sea can be prosecuted on arrival in a UK port. Only UK vessels can be prosecuted for such offences beyond the limits of the territorial sea.

401
Similarly, under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 powers of intervention in any incident where there is a threat of large scale pollution to the United Kingdom or to its territorial sea would apply in respect of the wider area of the territorial sea.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Baroness enlarge a little on that statement? Are Her Majesty's Government proposing to do anything further to extend port state jurisdiction, which of course it would have achieved under Article 2.1.8 of the Law of the Sea Convention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the answer to that is that this Bill is not concerned with what might be the réegime within the three-to 12-mile limit to which we are now extending but with extending the limit itself. As regards the specific point that she has raised, if I may, I shall write to her if there is something further I can say but I think that the way I have described it is correct.
The noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Campbell, asked about the recognition of other states' 12-mile limits, which of course is a most important point, and they referred in particular to the Strait of Hormuz and the attitude of the United States. The implications of the enactment of the Bill are that we shall recognise properly drawn 12-mile limits of other countries in the Gulf and elsewhere, in the same way that we expect them to recognise the navigational rights of other states. We believe that such limits are permitted by customary law and I believe that, although it has a three-mile limit, the United States now takes the same view. As to reciprocal treatment by others in the light of the Bill, we believe that the freedom of navigation and other rights in straits which we intend to accord to other states are widely respected and will be accorded to us.
There was one final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, regarding Soviet surveillance vessels which I did not answer. I can confirm to him that the right of innocent passage is the right to pass expeditiously. Ships have no right to remain anchored in the territorial sea.
I shall look carefully at the record of our debate tomorrow. I am grateful to noble Lords for the many points that have been raised and in particular for the welcome that has been given to the Bill and for the interest in it that has been expressed by those who have taken part in the debate this evening. As I agreed, I shall circulate the list of states, and perhaps I should say that, no doubt by a slip of the tongue, I may have misread one piece of information. There are 21 states that claim more than 12 miles and not the other way round, as I think I gave the information. At any rate I too must read Hansard to see what I said. However, I shall circulate the correct list of all the countries to each noble Lord who has taken part in the debate this evening. I am grateful for the welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Coal Industry Bill
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
A Coal Industry Bill is far from being a novelty in this House; indeed the introduction of such Bills has been a regular occurrence since this Government came to office. However, this is the first of those Bills which I have had the privilege to introduce; and I am particularly proud to be associated with a Bill which does so much to pave the way for a secure and prosperous future for the British coal industry. In a few moments I shall explain the provisions of the Bill, but first I should like to say a few words to set the background.
Throughout their time in office, the Government have demonstrated their confidence in the coal industry by making available large sums of money for investment and to assist the industry in tackling the enormous problems which had beset it for many years. With the Government's help the industry began seriously to address those problems and by 1983 some progress had been made toward putting British Coal on a sound commercial footing.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of what happened then. The industry was plunged into the longest, most senseless and most destructive strike that this country has ever seen. I shall not dwell on its causes or its conduct but I would stress the immense damage that the strike did to British Coal's timetable for financial recovery.
After the strike management and workforce came together to repair the damage. Enormous progress was made in a very short time. But then, early last year, came the dramatic tall in oil prices. From British Coal's point of view it could not have come at a worse time. However, despite these vagaries of the world oil market, British Coal continues to make strides in the right direction. This has been particularly notable in the case of productivity. After years of stagnant productivity levels we now see pit, area and national productivity records broken week after week. In 1983–84 the average output per man shift was 2÷43 tonnes. The figure now regularly stands above the three and a half tonnes mark. For that remarkable improvement I am pleased to pay tribute to all those mineworkers in every part of the country who have made it possible, regardless of the trade union to which they belong.
Important as increased productivity may be, however, it is only part of the picture, and not enough by itself to ensure the future health of the industry. In the period since the end of the strike, there has been a dramatic and overdue restructuring of the industry. Uneconomic capacity has been closed and large numbers of men have volunteered for the very generous redundancy terms which have been available to them under the Government's redundant mineworkers' payments scheme.
This latest period of major restructuring of the industry is now drawing to a close, but it is in the nature of an extractive industry that it should be in a constant state of change. It is therefore not possible to say that there will be no continuing restructuring. However, from now on the industry will not need to

403
continue restructuring at the same pace. There are some redundancies still to come. Pits will continue to close, as they have always closed, under all governments. But the Bill which is before your Lordships today presages a new period in which the industry finally has within its reach the prize of financial independence.
I turn now to the details of the Bill. The Bill has three main purposes which I should like to explain before describing the contents of the individual clauses. Each of the main purposes of the Bill in some way exemplifies this new era which we are entering. First, the Bill changes, formally, the name of the National Coal Board to the British Coal Corporation; it was fitting, after the changes that have taken place in the industry, that it should also change its trading name and adopt the name of "British Coal".
Second, the Bill further extends the Government's financial commitment to the coal industry, still necessary in this transitional period. Third, the Bill makes provision for the participation of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and other minority unions in the management of coal industry trusts, social welfare organisations and superannuation schemes. This marks the rise of a new realism among those employed in the coal industry and a realisation that the future course of the industry lies in their hands.
I will now take your Lordships through the first four clauses of the Bill in some detail. The first clause is necessarily that which changes the name of the National Coal Board to the British Coal Corporation. The trading name "British Coal" was adopted last year for very sound commercial and marketing reasons. Others have chosen to believe that the change presages privatisation but I can assure your Lordships that there is no truth whatsoever in that allegation. British Coal is a more modern name than National Coal Board, a name which neatly sums up the nature of the product and a name of which I believe we can all be proud. This provision in the Bill is intended simply to tidy up the current problems caused by having two names.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 deal with financial provisions. Clause 2 provides for the continuation of deficit grant powers. The Government introduced the power to pay these grants in the Coal Industry Act 1980. They are intended to eliminate or reduce any group deficit of the corporation and its subsidiaries. In the present Bill the power to pay these grants is extended for two years; that is, to the end of the corporation's 1988–89 financial year.
In Clause 3, we come to new territory. The Government announced in March that, with the prospect of a much reduced pace of restructuring in the industry, the time was approaching when British Coal would again be able to take more responsibility for deciding and financing their redundancy terms. The present redundant mineworkers payments scheme is therefore not to be renewed after March 1987. In October last year, British Coal announced new terms for voluntary redundancies.
It is not, however, the intention abruptly to end all support in this area. Payments to men who have taken redundancy under the RMPS will continue to be made
404
under the relevant statutory instrument. Payments to the corporation in respect of earlier years are covered by Clause 4. The new grants system under section 3—perhaps we should call them restructuring grants—is designed to be appropriate to an industry which is progressing to commercial viability, but which does not yet have the financial strength fully to fund the measures necessary to complete the transitional process.
Clause 3 will establish a flexible régime under which, by the introduction of annual orders, grant can be paid towards a fairly broad range of expenditure associated with restructing and the maintenance of concessionary coal and social welfare provisions. The use of affirmative resolution order-making powers will enable the terms of the grant support to be set out shortly before the start of a financial year of the corporation in the light of circumstances at the time. The Government would expect, as the corporation's financial position improves, that there would be a gradual transfer of some of these costs to the corporation. The power to make these orders applies initially to the 1987–88 and 1988–89 financial years of the corporation, but may be extended by up to a further three years. The kinds of expenditure by the corporation which will be eligible for grant are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Clause 3 refers to costs incurred after March 1987. However, the corporation will for some years to come have to spend money on costs which were incurred, or on obligations entered into, prior to that date. For that reason, Clause 4 makes various transitional arrangements to allow grant towards that expenditure to continue to be paid. This will be done on essentially the same terms as have so far applied under Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977. That summarises the financial provisions of the Bill.
The next three clauses of the Bill are provisions which must be introduced because it is clear that the changes they allow are proving difficult, or impossible, to make in any other way. It saddens me in a country so proud of its democratic traditions, and for an industry whose workers were proud of the democracy in their union, that such provisions should have to be made in legislation.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are designed to protect basic rights of employees in the coal industry; rights which, since the strike, have been denied to large numbers of miners around the country. Many of these miners are represented by a democratic trade union which has been refused affiliation to the Labour Party and the TUC. It is not for the Government to engineer affiliation for a union to another political party, although I am bound to regret the response it has had from the party of its choice. This Bill can, however, help thousands of miners in their fight for fair representation on the institutions of the coal industry.
In June last year, the High Court in effect confirmed that the coal industry's previous conciliation machinery must be changed to recognise the emergence of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. British Coal was thus obliged, as indeed it wished, to negotiate new conciliation machinery with the NUM and the UDM, under the terms of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I understand from British Coal that proposals for this new machinery are being

405
discussed with the unions. It is therefore unnecessary to make provision in this Bill for ensuring participation in such machinery.
The Bill deals with three specific areas in which powers are to be taken. These are miners' welfare trusts, coal industry social welfare, and superannuation schemes. Clause 5 empowers the Charity Commissioners, after receiving an application from an employee organisation, to amend charitable trusts related to the coal industry if the members of that organisation constitute a substantial portion of those who may benefit under the trust. Their aim in amending the trust would be to secure for that employee organisation fair representation among the trustees of the trust. The Charity Commissioners already have power in this area, but can at present exercise them only if they receive an application from the charity itself. In the present situation, in which many of the trustee bodies are dominated by the NUM, such approaches are unlikely. The provisions under this clause are therefore a necessary extension of existing powers.
The miners' welfare trusts are a very important part of everyday life in coal mining communities. It is sad and disappointing that the NUM has refused to agree that the necessary changes would be made to give the UDM its fair and proper role in the running of trusts in those areas where the UDM is dominant or strongly represented. Similarly, the NUM has denied the UDM and other minority unions a proper role in the management of social welfare organisations within the industry and, in particular, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to amend the constitution of a coal industry social welfare body if it appears to him, after receiving representations from the corporation, that any organisation which represents a substantial proportion of its employees does not enjoy full participation in that body.
If that is the case, he is empowered by this clause to make an order amending the body's constitution to confer on the employee organisations rights to full participation in the affairs of that body. Before such an order is made, the clause requires consultation with the corporatioin and those organisations which represent substantial proportions of the corporation's employees. As I have said, it has been the Government's hope that changes such as these could be achieved without legislation. An order under this section is a last resort, but one which cannot be delayed much longer if all mineworkers are to be allowed the participation in their own affairs which is their due.
Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers in relation to coal industry superannuation schemes similar to those I have just outlined for social welfare bodies. Again consultation is required before an order can be made. At present many thousands of mineworkers belong to a pension scheme in the running of which they have no say whatsoever. This cannot be right.
I have every confidence that the financial provisions in this Bill will enable the corporation to pass comfortably through the present phase which will see its final transformation from one of the lame duck
406
nationalised industries to a fit and commercially viable enterprise in tune with the needs of the modern world's energy markets.
I am similarly confident that the provisions dealing with union representation on the institutions of the industry will achieve their aim of defending the democratic rights of mineworkers. It is in this spirit that I commend this Bill to your Lordship's House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now a read a second time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
8.21 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. It was much less provocative and with much less coat trailing than the way in which it was introduced in another place. The Opposition do not disagree with him. We do not dispute the Bill's three main objectives: to change the name of the Coal Board; to extend certain financial commitments arising out of the disastrous dispute of 1984–85; and to facilitate the recognition of the Union of Democratic Miners within the industry.
I wish to concentrate on the third of those objectives, although I shall need to say a few words about the first two. I want to do that partly because that was the area which, it has been suggested, was not debated in another place and partly because there are a number of matters that we should make clear about the Opposition's attitude to the Bill's third objective. Nevertheless, let us turn to the Bill's first aim—the Coal Board's change of name.
The Secretary of State in another place—I am bound to say that the noble Viscount failed to explain to me at least why it was necessary to change its name—said that the change of name was for sound commercial and marketing reasons. He said that it was to add to the marketing attractiveness of the product. We can call a product what we like. It has nothing to do with the company's name. If one buys a good raincoat, one asks for Burberry; one does not ask for a GUS coat. No one knows what became of Mr. Benson and Mr. Hedges; no one knows whether Mr. Kipling ever existed; and no one knows how many names Mr. Rupert Murdoch has. One can call one's product what one likes. The name is changed all the time. In few places is there an identity between the name of the product and the name of the company. In most private enterprises there could not be.
Sir Ian MacGregor started calling the Coal Board's products products of British Coal back in 1985. There was no need for a statute then and there is no need for a statute now. If the Government did not want to do other things, they would not be asking us to do this.
Secondly, there is the Bill's aim to extend certain financial commitments. The Opposition's view in another place was that the size, the distribution and form of those payments and provisions made clear to them the intention of the board and the Government to continue the industry's run-down. They are continuing to plan for more redundancies; they are continuing to carry forward what we have always regarded as the disastrous best-seams policy. We still

407
believe that if the Government were to survive long enough they would be setting the scene for the industry's eventual privatisation.
I know that at the end of his speech the noble Viscount said that that was not the case. But I noticed that when he talked about the commercial uplands and the onward march of the industry, he did not say that it would be a public industry when it became more commercially viable. We say that at the very least the Government are leaving that option open.
I come to the Bill's third aim—to facilitate the recognition within the industry of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (Clauses 5 to 8). Those are essentially enabling clauses. They allow the UDM to be represented on the industry's ancillary bodies. The first point that I want to make is that the Opposition have at no time proposed and are at no time proposing to oppose that development. It is the logical consequence of the board's decision to recognise the UDM for bargaining purposes. Given the subsequent legal decision in May 1986, that decision conforms with that. There is a difference between us. The difference between us on the introduction of those clauses, which we do not oppose, is that we do not exult about this development.
We regard the break up of the natural, hardly won and hardly fought for miners' unity as a disaster. It is perhaps a necessary consequence of the Bill, but it remains a disaster. The division in disunity is true. Shakespeare said:
"'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity; and pity 'tis 'tis true."
That is why we have to have this part of the Bill.
That brings me to the second point, which was made in another place, although I do not believe that the Government took the point. The logic of doing what the Government propose to do, and the logic of doing what the Coal Board did on its own initiative, is to break up the long-established system of the exclusive bargaining rights which the NUM has had in the industry since nationalisation. We must think that through. We must think through the logic of the recognition of a minority union at national level and at area level in the case of Nottingham. It has implications. We sought to argue in another place that it has implications at unit level. The sole point at issue between us and the Government in this Bill is that the Government and the Coal Board, or British Coal if the noble Viscount prefers, have not fully accepted the implications of what they have done. The Government and the Coal Board have moved from a system of exclusive bargaining rights to a system of equal rights for the UDM at national, and where appropriate at area level. We suggest that nothing effective has been done at local or unit level to carry that basic change of policy into effect.
It was to remedy that position that the Member for Salford, East in another place moved a new clause in Committee on 11th December (col. 124 of the Official Report). My main question—indeed my sole question—to the Government tonight is whether they have thought again about their opposition to that new clause. It was based on Article 4 of ILO Convention 98, which so far as I know has not yet been revoked by the Government, the aim of which is to protect the
408
rights of minorities, especially those of recognised minority unions in majority areas.
The object of the clause is to grant freedom to represent members and service members; to grant equal bargaining rights; and to do that via a return to the provisions of the old conciliation scheme, including rights of arbitration as under that scheme. As I say, we are asking the Government, because we wish to come forward in Committee with a similar new clause, to think again.
The Government's reply in another place, as I understand it, was that the provision of the new clause moved by the Labour spokesman was not necessary because everything that is asked for is being done already. I hope that the Government will argue that way tonight and in Committee, because we believe that we can prove this is not the case. Examples were given, and further examples can be given, of activists in the Nottingham and south Midlands—members of the National Union of Mineworkers—where the UDM is recognised who have been discriminated against for trade union activity. Mr. McGinty of Merton and Mr. Wetton of Bevercotes were mentioned specifically by my honourable friend in another place.
The board's reply, as I understand it, is that certain restricted rights do exist at unit level, that the NUM can make representations on local issues but that it cannot negotiate, and that, if individuals of the union are involved in grievances, then they can be present as "a friend". To paraphrase A. A. Milne, that is not what Tigger calls bargaining rights, and that is not what the NUM enjoyed in those areas before the recognition of the UDM. The final point to make is that what we are suggesting—this was the central difficulty with the Secretary of State in another place, because I do not think that he took it on board—is as much in the interests of the UDM as of the NUM. The UDM is in a majority in some areas and a minority in other units; and in other places, for example, in Derbyshire and the Midlands, it would be a beneficiary of our proposals. What we are suggesting is that both unions should have minority rights, in particular in those units where they have a significant membership alongside majority unions. We are saying that this is the automatic, natural and logical consequence of a move from a system of sole bargaining rights to a system of parallel unionism.
I should like to finish by saying a word about the attitude that I would adopt and that I think my party would adopt to the trade union principles in the mining industry. In my experience, nothing winkles out the true friend of trade unionism like reactions to a breakaway. It is analogous to, although it is not the same as, the attitude of a believer in a marriage to the knowledge and news that one of the parties has left home. The true friend of trade unionism, like the true friend of the instutition of marriage, laments such a development. He hopes, sometimes in the face of all the evidence, that there can be an eventual reconciliation. It may take time, there may have to be changes, instructions, policies, but he hopes that in time there will be reconciliation. That is what he hopes. What he fears is not that there will not be reconciliation but that there will be endless mutual recrimination which will degenerate into an

409
interminable war, a mutual hatred, which even divorce and legal separation does not end in the case of marriage and even the foundation of a breakaway does not reconcile in the case of a trade union.
Yet experience suggests—this is where I come back to the Bill—that are some cases where it is possible to have separation and even divorce without endless war; that, given time, if other interested parties can learn to live with the system and if they can act in an impartial way between the warrring factions, a middle way is possible. There are many examples of this in trade union history. The Union of Communication Workers is a successful example today of a breakaway which eventually after a very bitter period rejoined the parent union to the benefit of all. The National Union of Public Employees is an example of the middle way, a union that maintained its independence, eventually achieved good relations with other unions, was prepared to accept such things as the Bridlington agreement and, therefore, was able to enter the Trade Union Congress.
For myself, I still hope that the miners will achieve the first solution, reconciliation, but I certainly hope, and I hope that the Government too hope—I thought that the noble Viscount tonight expressed that hope—that they will avoid the third alternative. That is what we are really about tonight. We are giving the Government the benefit of the doubt over the Bill. We are not ready to assume that they wish to perpetuate and stoke up the war between the UDM and the NUM. We are not ready to assume that they are taking one side or the other. We assume that they are trying to help in an alternative—perhaps alternative two if not alternative one—but in that case they must give a much more friendly and considered response to the new clause put down by my friend in another place.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to express my appreciation of the constructive manner in which the noble Viscount presented the Bill. It comes to us at a time when the coal industry is recovering impressively from the aftermath of the long-running strike to which both noble Lords referred. I believe it is important that the industry should be given every support in these endeavours. It is from that point of view that I shall make a few comments on the contents of the Bill.
To take first the change of name, I listened carefully to what both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had to say about this. For my own part I cannot help feeling a sentiment of nostalgic regret. The name of the National Coal Board was proudly hoisted aloft at every mine in the industry on 1st January 1947, when nationalisation began. The letters "NCB" have remained synonymous with the coal industry ever since. They have been woven into the tapestry of post-war history. The letters will always remain historically associated with the industry. I am saddened that when, as it certainly will, the industry eventually moves from success to success, it will not still proudly bear that designation. However, it has now been decided that the name shall be changed, and I am sure that we all wish the industry success under its new name.
410
I should like to deal briefly with the problem created by the divisions within the unions, because the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has concentrated on that aspect. I can only express regret again that this situation should have arisen. I believe that this is commonly felt by all parties. I feel that the steps now being taken are probably inevitable. I think that there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had to say. I personally hope that the time will come before too long when the union can be reunited and when everybody in the industry can be fully reunited.
I should like to reserve my main comments for the financial provisions, and particularly the provision to extend the deficit grant arrangements. I was pleased to see that provision, because the coal industry is still going through a process of recovery. The hope, I know, has been expressed by Sir Robert Haslam that that should be completed within a space of about two years. Let us hope that he is right. In the meantime it is certain that the industry must continue to invest substantially in its increasing new and developing assets. This is vital to the economy of the country. Let us bear in mind that as far ahead as one can visualise the coal industry will remain a major British enterprise. It will be vital in the energy mix. It is sometimes forgotten that it will be an important stimulator of innovation in a large supporting industrial sector, particularly the engineering sector.
It is for that reason, therefore, that I feel that we should go beyond the implications of this Bill in supporting the industry. It is one thing to be producing the coal as efficiently as possible but the coal has to have markets. The market situation of the coal industry at the present time is that more than two-thirds of its product go to one customer; namely, the electricity generating industry. Therefore it will be of vital importance that its role in regard to that customer should be clarified.
My personal view is that if it had not been for the long-running Sizewell inquiry we should by now have had one or two more coal-fired stations committed. I hope that we shall be able to debate that report before final decisions are reached, just as it has been agreed that it should be debated in another place. I hope that the eventual outcome will be—whatever the decision reached with regard to more nuclear stations—that the coal industry will have its fair share of new generating capacity.
There is one other aspect to which I should like to refer. The NCB, when it submitted its evidence to the energy committee in another place in January 1986, said that the board believed there was a strong case for government funding to develop advanced coal-fired generation techniques which held out the prospect of combining environmental acceptability with increased efficiency, and that those technologies received little funding compared with expenditure on R & D for nuclear energy. This is a vitally important aspect. The promise that new coal-fired technologies hold out are considerable, but in my opinion have not been sufficiently funded in the past. I hope that that will be remedied in the future.
I should like to conclude by saying that I support the purposes of this Bill but that I consider that those

411
purposes should be complemented by some of the other measures that I have mentioned.
8.43 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, although the debate this evening has of necessity been brief it has nonetheless been interesting and stimulating. I can assure both noble Lords that I shall read Hansard with great interest tomorow. If I do not answer all their questions this evening I shall certainly write to them. I should like to thank both the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Ezra, for their valuable contributions. While the coal industry is not the normal field of interest for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, he brought to the subject his enormous experience in trade union affairs. I shall do my best to answer the points that he raised shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has as always in debates on coal given us the benefit of his unique knowledge of the industry. However, I do not think that this evening is quite the occasion to go into the debate on the future power stations. I notice that the noble Lord brought in Sizewell towards the end of his speech. I assure him that I shall have taken note of what he said.
The Bill before your Lordships tonight is a straightforward one. Its intentions are clear. Outside this Chamber it has been called a privatisation Bill, a pit closure Bill and a harbinger of large-scale redundancies. It is none of these things. As I indicated in my remarks at the beginning of this debate, it is a Bill which enables British Coal to welcome the future and to welcome it with a new name, a properly represented workforce and sufficient funds to get through the present transitional phase.
Both the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Ezra, asked about the change of name. I enjoyed the play that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made with the name and with other names that he thought might have been used. However, I must tell the noble Lord that, contrary to some Opposition spokesmen in another place, the Government did not need to legislate to bring the statutory name into line with the trading name. It was, however, British Coal itself which preferred its trading name to be recognised in statute and believed that this would enhance a new image that it aims to establish, emphasising the commercial nature of its business and the fact that it is producing coal which is British.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised the question of the conciliation machinery within the coal industry. In my opening remarks I outlined the reasons why it was unnecessary to make provision in this Bill for ensuring participation in the industry's conciliation machinery. In answer to his question about the Government's attitude to the new clause proposed in another place, I have to tell the noble Lord that nothing has happened to change that attitude. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of this Bill give to thousands of men in the industry basic rights in the management of affairs which have enormous influence on their lives, towards which they contribute financially and which are outside the scope of their normal terms and conditions of employment.
412
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of regret that we have to legislate. None of the rights for which we are regretfully having to legislate here is anywhere denied to the NUM, whether they are in a majority or a minority. Nothing in the Bill has anything to do with negotiation, collective bargaining or terms and conditions of employment, simply because existing legislation establishes for those matters the rights of the union concerned. The detail of the machinery to be set up under that legislation is quite correctly a matter for employer and employee. I am advised by British Coal that discussions are being held with the unions on their proposals for new conciliation machinery.
I believe that that more or less covers the points raised by noble Lords. I shall read Hansard tomorrow.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order 1986
8.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved. [7th Report of the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order be agreed to.
On 30th October last year, your Lordships debated and approved the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 8) Order 1986. A mark and release scheme has since been introduced which enables sheep to be tested for levels of radioactivity. Those which pass the test are able to enter the food chain and their slaughter is permitted. The order before us is the current one to provide the necessary authority for the slaughter of these sheep. It also consolidates and corrects some minor drafting errors which were made in the No. 8 order when changes to it were made by subsequent amendment orders. These errors had no practical effect on the control over the movement and slaughter of sheep which ensures that no sheep with unacceptably high levels of radioactivity reaches the food chain. It is, however, right that they should be corrected.
My noble friend Lord Belstead explained in October the background to these orders and the reasons for making them. I do not propose to restate these today but rather to give a short summary of events as they affected Scotland.
The accident at Chernobyl, which occurred on 26th April last year, was the worst of its kind in history. It required a very speedy response. The radioactive cloud reached Britain over the weekend 2nd to 4th May and testing on milk products, grass, vegetables and water was increased between 3rd and 7th May. Radioiodine gave the earliest cause for concern and since this is concentrated in milk, the latter was the subject of much attention. Fortunately this radionuclide has a relatively short life and there were no untoward results revealed in this testing. Other products were soon being examined. Sheep meat in the slaughterhouses

413
was first monitored on 28th May and gave no cause for concern. Tests on grazing lambs, however, revealed unacceptably high levels of radioactivity which in turn led to restrictions being placed on the movement and slaughter of sheep in certain areas in England and Wales on 20th June and in Scotland on 24th June.
The restrictions in Scotland applied originally to Dumfries and Galloway, Arran and parts of Ross and Cromarty. They were extended to include North Uist on 30th July and South Uist on 13th August. Parts of the high ground in Strathclyde which bordered the high ground in Dumfries and Galloway were also made subject to restrictions on 30th July, and this additional area of designation was able to be kept reasonably small.
In addition to the evidence we had from our own sampling, we were able to take into account weather data, the grass and herbage sampling undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and others, and the results of the intensive milk sampling during May in determining the areas on which we should concentrate our efforts and resources. A programme of slaughterhouse monitoring was put in place simultaneously as a long-stop against contaminated foodstuffs reaching the food chain. There was only one situation that gave cause for concern in the slaughterhouse monitoring and this led to the imposition of the restrictions in North Uist, where it occurred.
Areas have been progressively released from restrictions since mid-July as a result of the intensive sampling programme that we instigated and these areas can be seen in Schedule 2 to this order. Schedule 1 shows the areas still designated and these are the ones from which blue marked sheep have been removed under the mark and release scheme announced on 13th August. The scheme was introduced to help the farmers move their sheep because feed was running short and it gave the authority for the sheep to be moved to uncontaminated ground before the areas from which the sheep came were cleared.
These blue marked sheep are being prevented from being slaughtered in the interests of public health until their levels of radioactivity have declined to a sufficiently low level. A programme of individual testing of the sheep was introduced on 18th December and to date out of over 6,400 tested in Scotland not one has failed. However, until we are satisfied that all blue marked sheep in Britain are clear, sheep which have not passed the test cannot be slaughtered and the areas from which they come must remain designated—hence the need to continue the current order.
It is right that I should pay tribute to individual farmers and the National Farmers' Union in Scotland for their forbearance, understanding and patience throughout the monitoring exercise. The restrictions came at the time just before the lambs were due to be moved off their summer pasture and this could have been disastrous for many farmers. The Government were well aware of this and knew that there was likely to be a need for some financial compensation. We introduced a three-tier compensation scheme which has been generally welcomed by the industry and I think that they represent a fair outcome for both farmer and taxpayer.
So far as this year's lambs are concerned and whether it will be safe to move them and sheep into the food chain this year, the position is being monitored carefully. The levels of caesium 134 and 137 which together give greatest concern in meat have remained stubbornly persistent on the high ground. Studies are under way to help us understand the movement and behaviour of radio caesium in upland pastures and in sheep. But it is hoped that the new grass, following winter snow and rain which will wash the caesium away and dilute it, will show very low levels of contamination and that no further controls will be necessary, Furthermore, the new lambs will not go to market immediately they are born and there will be a period of some months during which appropriate steps, if necessary, can be taken to protect the public. We shall not shirk from taking any steps thought necessary, guided of course by the facts the situation presents, and the objective scientific assessments at our disposal.
Chernobyl has been one of the most far reaching peacetime emergencies we have experienced in recent years. We are learning the many lessons from it. We had to take prompt action, and we did, when we heard about the disaster and all along our paramount consideration has been to protect the public.
The current restrictions embodied in the order before your Lordships will not I hope be necessary for much longer but we have to continue until we are sure that all blue marked sheep are suitable for human consumption. The continuation of this order is necessary to ensure that and to continue our protection of the public. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved.— (Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining a somewhat complicated order and also to apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is unfortunately unable to be here tonight. However, he gave me a number of points to raise, some of which have already been dealt with by the noble Lord—for instance, the consultation with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the fact that compensation is being continued to be paid. We have all learned some lessons from Chernobyl. The second point that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie wished to raise concerns the number of sheep which are still affected. I heard the Minister giving the figures which I shall read with interest. I am very pleased to agree to the order going through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987
8.57 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987, laid before the House on 26th January 1987, be approved.

415
This order is made under Section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. It enables effect to be given to Annex II and Protocol I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. These have in fact been amended firstly by the Protocol of 1978 and, secondly, by amendments adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation on 5th December 1985.
Four sets of regulations will be required under this order, to come into force on 6th April 1987, which will apply in general to United Kingdom ships wherever they may be and to other ships while they are in the United Kingdom or the territorial waters thereof.
The first set of regulations will cover the reporting of pollution incidents arising from ships. They will require reports to be made on all actual or probable discharges of marine pollutants in packaged form. They will also require such reports on all actual or probable discharges of oil or noxious liquid substances in excess of those permitted. Permissible discharges are detailed in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983 and the proposed Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 1987 (which will be made under this order which I shall now explain).
The second set of regulations will cover the prevention and control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk by ships. These substances are mainly chemicals but other noxious liquid substances are included. They will include prohibitions and restrictions on discharging tank washings into the sea, the requirement for my department to approve the necessary procedures and arrangements for ships carrying these substances, methods of control and construction, equipment, survey and certification requirements for such ships.
The third and fourth set of regulations will make it mandatory for chemical tankers carrying these noxious liquid substances in bulk, to comply with internationally agreed codes which cover the construction and equipment of such ships.
In making these regulations under this order, the United Kingdom will be fulfilling its international obligations with respect to the prevention and control of marine pollution, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining this order. There are only two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. Any order which carries out international obligations, particularly of this kind, would naturally receive the support of the Opposition. Reference is made to the reporting of incidents, or the threat of possible incidents that might involve pollution. To whom will the reporting be made? I have particularly in mind countries across the Channel and Ireland. Will some arrangement be made whereby both countries will be informed?
416
The Minister also referred to the fact that the order may have some effect on the construction of ships. As I understand that the order is to take effect from 6th April this year, have discussions with the General Council of British Shipping been such that there will be a guarantee that that could take effect if structural alterations have to be made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome to the order. To turn to reporting, the noble Lord asked particularly about our near European neighbours. Of course, we operate very closely with them under a number of conventions. The mechanism will be the same for this reporting as it is at present for the reporting of oil discharges. This extends the mechanism at present in force for oil discharges to cover the requirements for other particular types of chemicals. The report is made to the nearest coastal state by the fastest means possible. These guidelines will be developed by means of an M Notice. It is really an extension to the existing arrangements.
So far as concerns consultations with the GCBS, yes, there will be certain requirements regarding ship construction. We have consulted fully with the industry and also with the unions because the masters of the ships are responsible for some of this reporting. Those consultations have been satisfactory. Although I cannot give a positive answer to the noble Lord, I very much hope that all ships will be able to comply with these regulations when they come into force.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendments to the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft amendment laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft amendment laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.