Lords Sitting of 28 April 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

EC Policies: Consumer Integration
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to their Answer concerning consumer integration in other Community policies (HL Deb. 14th January, col. 1341), what decisions or recommendations have been made by the Council of Ministers on the first report on the integration of consumer policy in the other common policies put forward by the Commission to the Council of Ministers at the end of last year.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is expected that the Commission's report will be discussed at the next meeting of the Consumer Council on 7th or 22nd June, and that the Council will adopt conclusions on the subject then.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is the disappointing Answer we have had for two weeks running. We never seem to make progress. Is the Minister aware that his own department considers the report a disappointing document with no proposals at all for specific action? Does he realise that it was condemned by his department in another place on 11th February when the Minister concerned, by means of a written reply, said:
"it is a disappointing report recording little progress".—(Official Report, Commons, 11/2/88; col. 309.]
Will the Minister, in view of the widespread disappointment in his own department and elsewhere, produce a better answer than that he has just given?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The Government are disappointed that the report reflects little progress. At the next Consumer Council in June the Government will seek to bring pressure on the Commission to show some real progress. I am also aware that the consumer movement, in particular, the Consumers in the European Community Group, has made it clear that it too is extremely disappointed by the report.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister recall that last week his noble friend the Secretary of State told me that his department stood for enterprise? If that is the case, does he feel that it would be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Young, before the next meeting of the Council, to ask that a different report be produced for consideration? It seems a complete waste of time to discuss something which consumer organisations, both here and in Europe, consider to be worthless.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I shall pass on the noble Baroness's comments to my noble friend. I cannot promise the action that she requests. We should all like to see more progress made on this subject.

May Day Bank Holiday
3.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering altering the date of the present May Bank Holiday so as to secure a more even distribution of bank holidays throughout the year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government are reviewing the position of the May Day Bank Holiday, but no decision has yet been made. We are looking at a wide range of options.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which seems to me to be rather hopeful and helpful. In the course of those considerations, will the Government bear in mind that it seems ridiculous to many people to have three bank holidays at this time of year, within a span of six or seven weeks, and then only one between the beginning of June and Christmas?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has put his finger on the real problem. That problem is uppermost in our minds in conducting the review.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the fact that May Day not only celebrates organised labour and its achievements but is a folk festival of considerable antiquity dating back to pagan times, would it not be a pity if we were to abandon that holiday?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the importance of May Day depends on whom one asks. In Scotland, I understand, it marks the Act of Union.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in a great deal of Christian Europe 1st May is the beginning of the month of Mary?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the further considerations to which the noble Lord has referred include the possibility of having a fixed date for Easter, a matter which my noble friend Lord Airedale raises every year, and has raised for the past 12 years to my knowledge? Is that still an open question or has it been closed by any one of the Churches?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the requirement to fix Easter stems from the Easter Act 1927—
Noble Lords: 1928!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the Easter Act 1928, as my noble friends remind me. Speaking from memory, I believe that the requirement is that there should first be agreement among all the Churches. As yet, I understand that the Greek Orthodox Church has not made up its mind.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the point made by the noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench, could not we follow what the Americans have done? For many years they have had Labour Day in the late summer, or as they would call it, the early fall.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are considering the proposition that we should have a more equal spread of the various bank holidays. We are therefore considering whether it would be possible to find a date some time in the autumn, but what particular festival it should celebrate has yet to be decided. I understand that Trafalgar Day is one of those being considered.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his last suggestion would be far more attractive to many of us than a holiday which at the moment is often known colloquially as "the feast of St. Marx and St. Engels"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier in Scotland it marks the Act of Union. I dare say that that holiday is not so regarded there.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is widely acknowledged that the strongest possible case is made for a local man; namely St. David? St. David's Day is celebrated at the end of the bleak winter as the spring is burgeoning. Will the noble Lord think again?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, but the problem is that St. David's Day is 1st March and not the middle of October.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, owing to the factionalism of the British people from all parts and of most of the Churches, would it not be wise to abandon the thought of celebrating any feast and just call it the September Bank Holiday, or something like that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suppose we could, but I think that that would be a bit boring.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what about 1st July? People tend to want a holiday when the weather might be fine.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, 1st July is not a favourite date for the additional bank holiday because we already have quite a few in the summer.

ILEA Sports Grounds: Future
3.9 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether on the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not transfer any of the 400 acres of seven major sports grounds which are not required by inner London boroughs for educational purposes to other local authorities or to sporting charities unless a condition is imposed that they are used for definite sports by the community, or educational establishments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognises the importance of sports grounds and facilities. But we need to discuss the future use of all ILEA property with the inner London boroughs, users, and other interested parties before taking final decisions. Any property which is not transferred to the inner London boroughs on the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority will pass to the London Residuary Body.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under ILEA, possibly because of its dislike of competitive sports, these 400 invaluable acres of recreation and sports grounds are and have been grossly underused? Between now and ILEA's demise in 1990, will she initiate some discussions with local authorities, sporting authorities and clubs so that these precious areas can be more fully used by the younger generation and those who enjoy recreation and sport?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in preparing development plans for education each inner London council will be required to list the property it wishes to take over to carry out its education responsibilities. This will include sports facilities used by the schools and colleges in its area. Draft guidance on development plans was published earlier this week and sent to the boroughs. It explains the proposed arrangements for sports facilities which are used by more than one borough and also gives any other interested party the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Government agree to meet also with the Sports Council? Can they give an assurance that these valuable acres will remain for leisure and community use and not be given over to commercial developers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have consistently emphasised that we are willing to discuss the future of services in inner London with anyone with a special interest. This will include the Sports Council, the National Playing Fields Association and other similar bodies. We are happy to include anybody with such an interest in sports facilities. No disposal of the land can be made Without the agreement of the Secretary of State.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Secretary of State will be against uses other than for sports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the processes are intended to establish these areas for sporting facilities. If there is no take-up from inner London boroughs, outer London boroughs or any other interested party, other suitable use for the land may be considered.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps initiate a survey to see how much these sporting facilities, football pitches and so on are used? The impression is given that they are grossly underused. Is it not a shame that they should lie fallow when energetic young people want to take advantage of them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the intensity of use of the facilities will be one of the important considerations.

County Hall, London
3.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the permitted planning uses for the County Hall, London SE1.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, an authoritative answer on the permitted planning uses for the County Hall can be given only by the local planning authority which is the London Borough of Lambeth. I understand that in the light of the recent judgment the established use for County Hall is the exercise of local government statutory functions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which Londoners will be pleased to hear. Can he confirm that the Government have no intention of attempting to overturn the judgment made in the courts on 28th March when London government was established as being the only valid use, a judgment which in many respects humiliated the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering what action to take.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 62 ["Cost floor" limit on discount on price of house purchased by secure tenant]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 37, line 22, leave Out ("5") and insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to bring a Scottish Bill, which proposes a five-year cost floor limit, into line with the Housing Bill for England and Wales which provides for a rolling period of eight years' cost floor limit. This is for houses eligible for purchase under the right-to-buy legislation.
The "cost floor" means the price below which the discounted sale price cannot fall. The amount is based on the cost of provision incurred in a five-year period prior to the sale. If the Government wish to opt for a rolling cost floor rule, the timescale is crucial. Clause 62 was a new clause introduced by a government amendment tabled at the Report stage in another place. The present law provides that the discount shall be restricted so that the price is the lesser of the market value and any outstanding debt incurred after 31st December 1978. The proposed clause gives a rolling date for the cost floor—the beginning of the financial year five years before the right-to-buy application is made.
The proposed clause introduces the English concept of historic cost—expenditure in recent years rather than outstanding debt incurred in recent years. This makes it even more important that the Scottish Bill should change from the five years' basis to the eight years' basis as in the English Bill. It is even more important that the eight years should apply in Scotland given that houses in Scotland do not increase in value at the same rate as they do in many parts of England. In some areas of Scotland house prices are falling. I am thinking of some of the large developments associated with the oil industry. This five-year rule will cause capital losses for authorities and affect modernisation for some of their tenants.
Angus District Council completed a housing development of 103 houses in Montrose in 1987. The cost of providing the houses was £2·9 million. The current market value is of the order of £2 million. In 1991–92 the value that will be placed on the development is likely to fall significantly, house prices in that area having suffered considerably as a result of the setback in the oil industry. The figure may fall as low as £1·45 million compared with the original cost of £2·9 million. Thereafter, the houses will be available for sale at a discounted market value. The outstanding debt on the development at 1st April 1991 could be £2·6 million. I hope the Minister will accept that that is a fair point.
When it was suggested in another place during discussion of the English Bill that the period should be 10 years rather than five years, Mr. Waldegrave agreed that five years would be too little. He thought

299
that 10 years would be too much and that eight years would be just right. I agree and that is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that there is nothing sinister about the use in Scotland of a five-year rolling cost floor and in England an eight-year period. In the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Clause 62, the cut-off date for the present Scottish outstanding debt test is 31st December 1978. In the Housing Act 1985, however, Section 131 sets the relevant date for the cost floor in England at 31st March 1974. There is therefore already a difference of four years and nine months. Our proposals narrow this differential to three years.
The Government took the view, as set out in the respective White Papers for England and Scotland, that the discount restrictions which are imposed by the outstanding debt test in Scotland and the cost floor arrangements in England were a serious disincentive to many tenants planning to exercise the right to buy. The White Papers therefore suggested that these restrictions be abolished.
However, in the light of very careful and sympathetic consideration of the representations we received, we decided that something less than complete abolition of these restrictions was in order. We decided therefore to reduce the period over which they would apply, and in Scotland to simplify the arrangements to replace the outstanding debt assessment (which some authorities had had difficulty in applying) with a cost floor calculation, which should be much easier to operate. However, as I have said, the provisions in England and in Scotland are at present different; and we see no reason why they should necessarily conform after the change is made.
The Committee will note too that it is possible under Clause 62(2), which introduces a new subsection (6A) to Section 2 of the 1987 Act, for the Secretary of State by order to amend the relevant period from five years to some other figure.
The effect of this provision on housing associations has been queried. The noble Lord did not refer to that but I should like to clarify this point. It has been suggested that housing associations are very upset about the provisions that we propose to bring forward in Clause 62. Let me attempt to put the record straight. The bulk of housing association development work carried out since 1978 has been funded by a combination of the loan from the housing corporation and the housing association grant from the Government.
On average, the housing association grant covers just over 90 per cent. of the total cost of providing houses, leaving the housing associations with a loan of less than 10 per cent. of the capital cost. Therefore, the first call on the money brought in by selling a house would be the repayment of the loan held by the housing association. As this is for an extremely low percentage of the total cost it is extremely unlikely that a house will be sold for less than the amount of the loan. The consequence of a sale below the cost of providing a house would simply be that the Government would recover less housing association grant than they had given to the association.
300
Finally, it is useful to bear in mind that one consequence of the introduction of assured tenancies for all new lettings is that new tenants of housing associations will not have the right to buy. I wanted to cover that point as I know that many people are concerned about it.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about Angus district. I am aware, as no doubt the noble Lord is also aware, that there have been representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the situation in Angus district. I understand that that district contacted the Scottish Office some weeks ago seeking guidance on whether the Secretary of State will be prepared to make an order under Section 62(7) of the 1987 Act requiring the selling price of new houses in a particular new development in Montrose to be no less than the debt outstanding on those houses. This is because the market value of those houses as confirmed by a number of valuers is now much less than the cost of constructing the houses because of the effect of the rundown of oil-related development in the area, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said.
However, the department informed Angus district that the Secretary of State would be unlikely to make an order. That is because it would not be equitable to expect any tenant exercising the right to buy to pay more than the current market value of the house. Nobody should be asked to pay an amount greater than the true value of a house.
The new rules introduced by Clause 62 of the Bill will not immediately affect the position here. The tenant will continue under the cost floor rule to have to pay full market value without discount at the present time. It may be that after the five-year period over which the new cost floor will apply the council will require, if the tenants exercise the right to buy, to sell these houses for less than the historic cost of providing them. That is because, even with inflation in the interim, the market value will not have risen much beyond the historic cost and the discount will of course reduce the sale price.
However, let me emphasise that sales of this kind will be the exception. In all authorities I expect that substantially more houses, as is being proved, will be sold under the right to buy at prices well above the debt outstanding than are sold below that figure. I have looked very carefully at this situation. I believe the new rules introduced by Clause 62 are entirely reasonable. They reflect points put to us by local authorities and others. We do not see any need for the period in which the cost floor operates to be the same in Scotland as in England. But if experience shows that a change is needed in the Scottish rules or in the English rules for that matter there are powers to make the necessary amendments by order.
As I said earlier, in all authorities we expect the majority of right-to-buy sales to continue to be at prices well above outstanding debt levels. Therefore, I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should not dare to criticise the Government but I simply do not understand the situation which has been envisaged by this provision. I hope that the Minister is right in saying that the housing associations will not suffer. They are deeply

301
concerned that they may and will suffer. I can do no more than accept what the Minister has said as regards housing associations not suffering under this provision. I take it that if they do suffer or show a likelihood of suffering the Secretary of State may use his powers to remove this provision.
I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I thought he said that the right to buy of housing association tenants had been taken away. I do not know what the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be to this matter, but I shall not press it at present. I am frankly relying on the Minister's judgment on a matter which I do not understand. If the Minister says that this provision is all right, I must accept that. But I shall hold him to ransom if in future that view is found not to be correct.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall try to reply to my noble friend Lord Selkirk by saying that the people who will really lose are the taxpayer and the Government and not the housing associations themselves, bearing in mind the financial arrangements under which they operate. That should be sufficient assurance to my noble friend on that point relative to housing associations.
My noble friend also asked about the position in housing associations after the enactment of this Bill. I know that the right to buy is a point close to his heart. I remember that in the debates that went on at great length about charitable housing associations in Scotland my noble friend was very successful in pressing that point. I am sure he will be very relieved to know that when this Bill becomes an Act the right to buy for housing association tenants will not continue.
The Earl of Selkirk: If I have understood the position correctly, this provision really does not apply to housing associations at all.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I accept that remark.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I had hoped that the Minister would do better on this matter than Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, did in another place. The Minister has perhaps spoken a little more, but like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am not absolutely sure about this provision. A great deal needs to be taken on trust.
In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"The Hon. Gentleman asked why the situation was different from that in England. The answer is that it has been different for many years. The cut-off date at present for Scottish outstanding debt is 31st December 1978. In England it is March 1974, so there was a considerable discrepancy in dates long before the statement today … We do not have to do everything exactly the same as in England".
If there is anything being done in England that would be beneficial to the Scots, I want it to be done in Scotland. I hope that the Minister feels the same way. I take the point about the housing associations. We shall have to look at that to see whether or not they will lose out through this provision.
However, I am still not happy. I thought that the Minister was slightly offhand, perhaps even reaching
302
the point of smugness, when he said that there will be a balance in each area because most of the houses will be sold at an enhanced price even though some may be sold at a lower price.
We are dealing with a big area when we speak of Angus. It was badly hit by the downturn in world oil prices, which could not have been anticipated. The Minister must be aware that the keys to a large number of houses have been given back to the building societies. In some parts of the west Highlands there were similar developments related to oil prices and there are other examples as well.
We should like to know whether the Minister believes that there will be a rough balance between the swings and the roundabouts for single areas and not just for the whole of Scotland. The people of Angus may be badly hit and at the same time the people of Strathclyde may be all right. If there is no rough balance, will the Government have the power to help out if there is obviously a very severe anomaly? Other than that, the Minister seemed—
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may make one or two further points. I should like to clarify the position for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, concerning the right to buy. I want to make that matter absolutely clear. That right continues for existing housing association tenants as distinct from the charitable housing associations. However, it will not exist for new housing association tenants. I wish to make that clear.
Turning to the question of what the effect of the legislation will be, it is impossible to say exactly how many houses will be affected by the change in the cost floor arrangements which we propose. The discounted price of any house, ignoring any cost floor which may apply, depends on the individual tenancy record, and statistics are not available relating the length of tenancy to age of houses or improvements carried out to them. However, the numbers involved are relatively small. Some 36,000 houses were built in the period affected and 1,000 of those have already been sold. Some 200,000 public sector houses were in some way improved between 1979 and 1983. However, very few tenants in those houses will be affected by the new rule. In most cases, the oustanding debt on the improvements will already be below the market value, less the maximum discount level.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is concerned about the matter. I am also concerned about any effect on any particular area. However, having looked into it, I feel that the arrangements which we propose under the clause will be satisfactory for the situation in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister is doing his best to explain a complicated matter. However, he still has not answered the question which I put when I gave the example of Angus. He used that example and he must therefore be aware of it. The outstanding debt on the development in Angus in 1991 is projected—I am sure the figures have been well checked, although there is a certain amount of guesswork involved—as being £2·6

303
million. That is a large sum of money for a place like Angus. It is very worrying.
The Minister seemed to be making some clarifications during his speech. We shall read that speech in Hansard and perhaps return to the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will get together with me concerning exactly what the alterations are. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Rent officers: additional functions relating to housing benefit etc.]:
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("and
(d) shall not specify individual grounds on which the Rent Officer shall make a determination.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 66 refers to the powers and responsibilities of rent officers. It also deals with the related subject of determination by rent officers of housing benefit. The purpose of the amendment, which may enable the Minister to deal in general terms with the whole subject of the powers of rent officers, is to limit the power of those officers in determining an individual's entitlement to housing benefit.
That subject is very important in the light of recent discussions and changes in housing benefit entitlement. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is that the letting of houses in both the public and the private sectors should be based on an income which will be adequate to support them with a minimum of public subsidy. The policy papers which preceded the Bill frequently referred to the level of rents required and stated that the rents should be economic, sensible or affordable. However, there was little that was specific in that regard.
What is known about the general thrust of the Bill is that the Government intend to depart from the concept of fair rents and let them rise to market levels. In Scotland, the majority of tenants cannot afford rents without subsidies. CoSLA has expressed concern that the Government's proposals will exacerbate that problem, particularly in the light of recent changes restricting eligibility for housing benefit. Subsequent amendments are also related to the amendment. Therefore, I would appreciate a reply from the Minister on the point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the argument forward in his amendment. As he rightly says, the matter will also come up in subsequent amendments and we shall no doubt have further discussions. However, at this stage perhaps I may emphasise that Clause 66 is designed purely and simply to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system. I am sure that the Committee supports that aim.
It also makes sense to make use of the expertise of rent officers to ensure that abuse does not take place. There is nothing sinister about the power under
304
which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give guidance and information to rent officers. We should remember that the function to be given to those officers is a new one and that there will be a need to ensure consistency of approach throughout the country. The guidelines to be issued in determining rents and levels of reasonable accommodation will be the aim.
I recognise that the concern of the noble Lord and others outside the Chamber is to ensure that the new role of the rent officer is properly thought through. It is for that reason that government departments, local authority associations (including CoSLA) and rent officers are involved in discussions on the details of how the new arrangements will work. We intend there to be nothing draconian about the new procedures and rules to be followed by rent officers. They will be applied fairly and with discretion. The guidance to be issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be designed only to help ensure that.
I hope that with that explanation, and knowing that others will wish to discuss the clause later, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I very much welcome the Minister's assurance that this will be the subject of continuing discussions with CoSLA. In the event of CoSLA's concern being dealt with I would propose to withdraw the amendment. I sincerely hope that the discussions and negotiations will be clarified before we conclude discussion on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 40, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) After section 30(2) of that Act there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The local authority shall have the right to appeal within one month to the Secretary of State against a determination made by the rent officers in exercise of functions transferred by section 64 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
The Secretary of State must reconsider the original determination having due regard to the representations made by the local authority.—').
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on the earlier amendment when he stressed that the two roles of rent officers in any individual case will almost certainly conflict with each other. It is inevitable, I believe, that there will be a conflict. The amendment would allow some form of additional help in assessing rents. We believe that the legislation as drafted is not complete because it does not allow for local authorities to make representations based on their knowledge of local circumstances and needs.
Rent officers will face a difficult and not very pleasant task in determining rents. Some of their determinations might very well be unjust. But the right of appeal by local authorities would ensure that such cases could be reviewed and that local authorities' knowledge of particular cases could be taken into consideration. We consider that to be the minimum defence required to allow for natural justice given the dual role of the rent officer.
I know that there could be a plague of appeals by local authorities; but perhaps the Minister will be able to define parameters within which local authorities would not be able to appeal. No government want every decision of the rent officer to be challenged by local authorities. Nevertheless, there must be some right for the people living in the area, who know the area and who are perhaps dealing with hundreds of houses, to make an appeal on behalf of their area. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for putting down the amendment. I recognise that local authorities are concerned that they will lose subsidy when they pay benefit above the level of rent determined by the rent officer. This could arise when a claimant who is dissatisfied with the amount of housing benefit he receives makes use of his existing right—which will be unaltered—to have the decision reviewed.
Because the circumstances in which local authorities could lose subsidy under the new arrangements are complex, they are being considered carefully by working parties which, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, at present include representatives from the Scottish Office, CoSLA and the Institute of Rent Officers, as well as the DHSS whose prime responsibility the subsidy arrangements are.
I can inform the Committee that the Government accept that local authorities should in principle have a right to seek a review of the rent officer's determination in certain circumstances. However, the best way for such a review to take place has not yet been agreed. Various options are being considered—among them, using the rent assessment committee, a team of senior or chief rent officers, an independent valuer or something less formal. The precise circumstances in which such a review can be requested also need to be decided. I can therefore assure the Committee that local authorities should have some right of appeal but would hope that the Committee agrees that the detailed arrangements should be set out in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill since those details are yet to be finalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether discussions with local authorities will include CoSLA and when those discussions will finish. The discussions are still at a relatively early stage. They do not need to be completed until assured tenancies come into effect, which is likely to be early next year. I can assure the Committee, however, that details of the new functions will be included in a parliamentary order which means of course that Members will have an opportunity to consider them if they so wish.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is satisfied with that assurance and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In the circumstances, the good faith of the Minister cannot be doubted. I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Rent officers: additional functions.
Where a rent officer has made a determination of a market rent in exercise of functions conferred by section 66 of this Act, that determination shall have effect as if it were a determination of rent by a rent assessment committee under section 25 (for assured tenancies) or section 31 (for short assured tenancies) except that the determination shall have effect from the date of reference to the rent officer.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friends Lord Kirkhill and Lord Carmichael, it is necessary to try to set the scene for the purpose of the amendment. On this side of the Chamber we agree that there have been abuses of the housing benefit system and of the rent allowance subsidy. Too high rents have been charged so that a relatively small number of unscrupulous landlords have been subsidised. However, the effect of the Bill is that the rent control merely saves public money. The rent officer's fixing of the determination covered in Clause 66 merely restricts the amount of housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy that is payable; it does not affect the amount of rent that the tenant is required to pay. Of course, this situation affects only the very poor elements in society who are entitled to rent subsidy, housing benefit or rent allowance subsidy.
Therefore, if somebody who is entitled to housing benefit—if I may refer to housing benefit only— enters into a lease with an unscrupulous landlord for a very high rent, housing benefit is restricted to what the rent officer considers is a market rent but the tenant is liable to pay the balance. That necessarily means that the rent is way above the market rent because the rent officer has fixed the market rent.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it the case that for people receiving housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy, where and only where the rent is fixed at the market value for the purpose of housing benefit for the public side, it shall also be fixed for the tenant at that market value.
So far as we can understand, according to the Government's intentions, the market value will be based on appropriate yields which might be expected from investment in the private rented sector. If one considers the type of people (unfortunately, a fairly large class) who are entitled to housing benefit, they include people who are not very well up in knowing what the market rent is for any property. They are often those most anxious to have some sort of roof over their heads and on low incomes. That is a necessary assumption from their being entitled to housing benefit. Therefore it seems strange that the state is protected in respect of rents payable on housing benefit, but not the poor. This amendment is moved in order to protect the poor while still enabling the landlord to receive the benefit of a full market rent.
Perhaps I may give some examples. If you have a 17 year-old girl on income support looking for a bedsitter in Edinburgh, she may find accommodation at, say, £45 a week. The rent officer may decide that the rent should have been £38 a week. She requires then to find an extra £7 a week out of her income

307
because her housing benefit would be restricted to that £38 a week. She is unlikely to be the sort of person who would know market values and be able to exercise the full market choice that seems to be intended.
Another example is that of a young couple on income support who are renting a flat at, say, £300 a month. If they miscalculate what the rent officer would fix as the market rent, they may find a considerable difference—something like £12 quite easily—in their weekly income, which for a young family with children could be a disastrous situation.
I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. This is one of the misses that have occurred in this very complicated legislation. I am sure that the Minister never intended all the harshness to fall on the poor. It would be perfectly easy to keep the legislation fair by saying the landlord is entitled to market rent as fixed by the rent officer. Housing benefit is limited to market rent, so the state or the local authority do not have to pay too much and the tenant is limited to market rent, so that he or she does not have to pay too much. That would seem to be reasonable. It does not require any additional rent determination system; it only applies to tenants eligible for housing benefit; and it will not affect the supply of rented accommodation.
Landlords, on the premise on which the whole Bill is drafted, will be charging market rent anyway, so it will not hold down rents. It will only disadvantage those landlords who are charging what rent officers consider to be excessive rent. If the Government intend to support them exclusively, I should be very surprised; in that case no doubt they will say so and I shall put this amendment to a vote. However, I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a rather complex matter and it is difficult to understand how Clause 66 works. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I have misunderstood, but it seems to me that, as the Bill stands, the success of this measure depends on the tenant not agreeing to a rent which is in excess of the figure that the rent officer will eventually fix. Is the noble Lord, Lord Morton, going to put me right on this?
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is the other way about: the tenant fixes a rent with the landlord and, the tenant being in receipt of housing benefit, automatically the rent officer comes round. There is already an existing contract between the landlord and the tenant for rent. Then the rent officer comes round, looks at it and says, "Oh, no, that is excessive. Housing benefit will only be at the lower level".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that is my understanding, but it seems to me that if the Bill is to remain as it is—and I have not yet heard my noble friend's argument for or against this amendment—somehow the tenant, in fixing the rent with the landlord in the first place, must be able to know fairly well what will happen when the rent officer comes to assess it. It seems to me that my noble friend has to explain to me how the
308
tenant is to know that. That has perhaps put in layman's terms what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said to me.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain that to me when he gives his point of view about this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I will now try to explain this very complicated part of the Bill. This amendment, if accepted, would be contrary to one of the central themes of the Bill: that rents payable under assured tenancies are to be freely negotiated between landlord and tenant. This is recognised in Clause 25, which makes it clear that for assured tenancies the rent determined by the rent assessment committee need not be the rent finally charged. The only exception to that general rule is in the case of short assured tenancies where tenants have additional rights of rent control reflecting their reduced security of tenure because of the time-limit on that type of tenancy.
As has already been explained, the rent officer's function under Clause 66, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is strictly related to the assessment of the housing benefit subsidy. I think we are agreed on that. If it were to be the case that the level of rent determined for that purpose was to become the rent payable, we should be in a position of having the rent officer setting rents in all cases where housing benefit was payable. Clearly, this would be going back down the road of rent controls from which this Bill is seeking to move away in the interests of tenants and landlords alike.
The Government have made it very clear that it is our view that only by giving landlords a fair return on their investment will there be the incentive to let, which is a prerequisite to the expansion of the private rented sector. By introducing an extra element of rent control, this amendment would put that objective in jeopardy. There is another danger. If it were the case that landlords were faced with a rent determination by rent officers in cases where housing benefit was paid to the tenant, landlords would be more reluctant to let to such tenants, who would therefore find private sector accommodation much harder to obtain. I am sure this is not what noble Lords wish to achieve.
I should also stress that the rent officer's determination for the purpose of housing benefit subsidy does not mean that the local authority cannot pay a higher level of housing benefit to the tenant. The authority may well do so if it chooses, though it will lose subsidy on the excess.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked how the tenant would know. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will issue guidance to rent officers on the principles to be adopted in assessing whether or not a rent is reasonable.
The rent officer will take the market rents as the basis for his assessment, comparing the rent with evidence of bargains freely struck between the landlord and tenants paying from their own resources. If there is insufficient market evidence for a rent officer to make such an assessment, my right honourable friend will give guidance on the procedure to be adopted. This will include advice on appropriate yields which might be expected from

309
investment in the private rented sector taking into account the contribution to the yield likely to be made by capital appreciation on the house.
I have to say that this amendment—I know that this will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—runs counter to the underlying purposes of the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
The Earl of Selkirk: The Minister has answered as I expected. I must say that quite frankly, and I can understand it. But he has not replied to the story told by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. The young student wants accommodation—at Edinburgh University or wherever. What he wants to know is the benefit he is going to get if he lives in a particular house. I know what I should do; I should get in touch with the rent officer and ask him what benefit he could give me. I should not make an agreement with the landlord until I knew the degree of my benefit. That seems to me to be something that will inevitably happen.
It may be illustrated by the situation in which a tenant is told, "If you come to this house you will get a benefit of £x." Surely that is what will happen to many people. I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of that. A student with practically no means would not go into a house at a rent of, say, £50, to find he only gets a benefit of £35. He just would not do it. One has to face up to the fact that such a connection will become necessary.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I point out that the noble Earl's question was linked with a point that I did not fully understand. In striking the deal with the landlord, the student or the person who is entitled to the benefit has to know that the deal will work for him before he strikes the deal. We heard my noble friend amplify the fact that the local authority can pay more than the benefit. That is an important point. However, in making the deal in the first place the potential tenant has to know what that figure is likely to be— or am I misunderstanding the point? How does one find out whether one is a potential tenant in that position? I can see that the amendment will not work. It will spoil the intention of the Bill. But how will the tenant know what deal to strike?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I understand the aim of my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Selkirk. A student must know, before making an arrangement with a landlord, what his liability is. First, landlords will quickly realise that they can charge only market rents if they are to obtain tenants. Secondly, they will be able to find out the general level of housing benefit in those circumstances. I do not think that I can go further than that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has gone a great distance in what he has just said. If he means that landlords can charge only market rents, and if, as I understand it, the rent officer is to fix what are to be reasonable rents based on market rents—which is a distinction I do not see—I fail to see why it destroys the basis of the Bill that the tenants should be able to restrict the rent they pay to market rent. That is all
310
that we are asking. We ask that the rent payable should be restricted to what the rent officer determines is market rent. That is the basis on which the housing benefit and the rent subsidy allowance can be paid.
Perhaps I may make a subsidiary point. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that local authorities can pay additional allowances. He may have heard—if not I shall willingly tell him—that there is an office in St. Andrew's House which on occasions has restricted local authority spending and, for instance, practised rate-capping. If a local authority spends too much it takes even more away in the way of grants. Disincentives are applied at an office that the Minister on occasions visits. That was not a very good answer.
There is another point that seems to me to be absurd. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked how the student is to find out. We are not dealing only with students. They receive a lot of housing benefit. We are also dealing with people and families with very low incomes, some of whom do not have the intellectual attainment to be students. The Minister said that guidance from the Secretary of State would be available to rent officers. Assuming that one of these poor families obtained the rent officer's guidance, would they possibly understand it, or would it be like the schedules that we are discussing—understandable only to a valuer? The benefit issue is very important. I cannot see why this amendment is so disastrous. It is fixing the rent at the market rent. The noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As the noble Lord spoke, I thought that I began to see how the arrangement might work. The amendment suggests that rent should also be limited by the tenant to the market value. Let us suppose that the tenant is not then paid benefit. That may easily happen if somebody takes a house when he is unemployed and then obtains a job. The rent is set at a wrong amount. That must surely be part of the argument also, must it not?
Lord Morton of Shuna: That would be dealt with by market forces— if I may pray them in aid. We are dealing with the market rent for the house. That does not depend on the type of tenant. As I understand it, the rent officer is fixing the market rent of the house. In the cases with which we are dealing, we are assuming that the landlord is charging, and the tenant has originally agreed, something above the market rent for the house. I see no reason in effect why anybody—even if he later obtains employment—should be bound to pay more than the market rent.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If I am unemployed, I would have every hope that I should obtain a job within the year, and I am capable of earning a reasonable salary. In the meantime I am entitled to benefit. I might well take on a house at a somewhat higher rent in anticipation but then this situation may arise, in which case the amendment of the noble Lord would not hold good.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We are at cross-purposes. It may be a minor point. The noble Baroness is talking of someone anticipating the type of rent that

311
he can afford to pay if he has a job. He might be able to pay a rent of, say, £20 a week. If that were an excessive rent for that property, it would not matter whether the person was able to pay £1 million a week: it would still be above the market rent for that property. That is the distinction. It is the market rent for the property that is being discussed in this amendment.
In those circumstances I have to ask the view of Members of the Committee.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Chilston, V.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kagan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caithness, E.

Alport, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Balfour, E.

Coleraine, L.

Bauer, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cross, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

312

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moyne, L.

Effingham, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newall, L.

Erroll, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rugby, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Sandford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("Grants to voluntary organisations.
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make such grants as are necessary to voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure that is attributable to the training and provision of information to advisers, landlords and tenants, as to the meaning, application and implications of this Act.
(2) In this section voluntary organisation means a body other than a public or local authority body, the activities of which are not carried on for profit and is concerned with the giving of advice on matters connected with housing and adviser shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: The debate that we have just had illustrates the complexity of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was not alone in finding it difficult to follow the detail of the previous amendment and its implications for the Bill. Therefore if we find it difficult, having read the Bill, digested the amendments and discussed them, how will the ordinary citizen in Scotland understand the Bill?
It is anticipated that directly or indirectly the Bill will affect over half the households in Scotland. At the present moment the voluntary agencies in Scotland respond to 500,000 inquiries each year and with the new burden of interpreting and advising on the Bill, their burden will be increased substantially. As we said at the outset, we wish the Bill to succeed, but it will succeed only if it is understood. The amendment makes a plea for increasing grants to the citizens' advice bureaux and the advisory agencies so that they may be in a position to guide.
There are questions of tenants' rights, rent levels, landlords' rights; all of these are difficult within the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that this be written into the Bill as a firm commitment to the voluntary organisations that are defined in the amendment. It should be written into the Bill that they should be given the necessary resources to carry the burden. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: It may indeed seem sad and shocking that this type of new clause should even be contemplated. It means that Parliament is now passing legislation of such complexity and indeed of such confusion that we have to contemplate training people to understand it.
This legislation will affect thousands of people, yet the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, described one schedule in the Bill as totally incomprehensible and later as nonsense. The Government appear to doubt whether they can do anything about it. The noble Earl, as we all know, is a very distinguished lawyer and Queen's Counsel: a man of great experience and ability. If he cannot understand the Bill and says that part of it is nonsense, what chance has the ordinary tenant in Scotland of making head or tail of it? The first plea I make to the Government is that they should pay some attention to the constant criticism not only from the noble Earl but from the Scottish judges and many Members of this Committee about the state of parliamentary draftsmanship and the legislation that they produce.
This is not merely an academic matter. There has been considerable confusion in Shetland over the rights of tenants and their position in regard to the two public housing authorities which operate there. I realise that the present position will be altered by the Bill but it is apparent that the Bill will make the matter no clearer. In the light of the confusion that has arisen in Shetland under the present conditions, the Bill is likely to make matters worse. I think that it is totally regrettable that this kind of new clause should be necessary. However, if the Government are to resist it, I believe that they must give an undertaking either that they will look at the more unintelligible parts of it with great care and attempt to make them clearer—and I doubt whether they can do that with a Bill of this length during the time that is left—or that they will write in new provisions affecting the local authorities and possibly the new housing authority. They must lay a duty on those bodies to explain the Bill and to provide the necessary advice. I do not believe that that can be left entirely to the existing voluntary organisations, excellent as they are. Before the complication of the Bill has taken effect, there is in Shetland a clear need to advise tenants not only about the proposed changes but the whole process in which they may become involved when the Bill takes effect.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I should like to point out that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who has added his name to the amendment, is unable to be present. I sometimes feel sorry for the way in which we throw brickbats at the parliamentary draftsmen. Perhaps it would be nice to give them a couple of fallow years of legislation and a chance to carry on with their crafts and skills.
314
As has been said by the previous speakers, Clause 74 was an excellent example of the difficulties. Knowledge and understanding of the Bill will be one of the most important issues. I am sure that the Government do not wish to have an unpopular Bill hanging around their neck in the future. Unless there is knowledge of the way in which the Bill will operate in individual cases, there will be a possibility of openings for Rachmanism. There are already certain people in my part of the world who are more expert than Members of the Committee in seeing their way through housing legislation and finding loopholes. Over the years there have been many unbelievably clever ways of obviating rent restrictions. I hope that the Government will look seriously at that issue.
I am not in total agreement with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the role of voluntary organisations. I believe that a point is reached where people have more faith in voluntary organisations for obtaining certain types of information. As long as they are doing the job I hope that they will be given the tools with which to do it. Rather than the Government spending a great deal of money on advertising the effects of the Bill, I should like to see it given to some of these excellent organisations to which people can go for an explanation of their particular case. It means that those who are providing that service within the voluntary organisations must be given special coaching. The Government may be able to handle the difficulty by giving volunteers an understanding of the way in which the Bill will operate. Then perhaps they could come back and tell us.
The Earl of Selkirk: I have great sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Two or three fallow years without housing legislation may produce something positive, although I know not. I do not doubt for one moment that my noble friend will earnestly say that he must do this. However, we should like to see some substantial evidence of exactly what he will do. I do not believe that one can expect the people of Scotland to understand the Bill. Unless I am much mistaken there are at least nine or 10 forms of tenancy which can arise in different circumstances. I do not claim to understand them for one moment, but the people want to know the facts about the tenancies and there should be simple access.
The Bill has added greatly to the complication of life for a large number of people. The answer is to ensure that the citizen' advice bureaux, or whatever, which are splendid organisations, will have the means of explaining it to people and making their lives simpler. It is a straightforward proposition. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me—I am confident of it—but will he agree to an adequate supply of money to provide the means by which it can be carried out?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend has put his finger on the point of the discussion. I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, believes that a clause such as this will be included in the Bill. Presumably this is a probing amendment because I do not imagine that one would agree to legislation to:

315
"make such grants as are necessary to voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure".
Doubtless the noble Lord will explain that when he replies to this short debate.
Some extremely good material must be produced in respect of this Bill once it becomes law. Many of the 500,000 queries received by voluntary agencies, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are in respect of existing housing and benefit systems. Therefore they will be replaced by new queries about the new system. However, change as radical as this will be difficult for people to understand. People such as those working in citizens' advice bureaux must inform themselves as to the way in which the system works. The discussion in respect of Clause 66 is a good example of something which must be expressed clearly in the information material which must be produced by the Government.
What will be the financial situation for voluntary organisations? I know that some already receive considerable grant aid from the Government. I believe that the citizens' advice bureaux receive a large sum of money from the Government but I am not sure how much. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us. They do a wonderful job but they will need the material and information with which to work. I do not know whether they will need extra grant aid but I am sure that if they have the extra material they will become very important to people, as will the officials who will also explain the Bill. However, I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is a way of arriving at that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this issue. I should like to begin by underlining two points which I have made during the course of the Bill. In reply to the debate on Second Reading I said that in relation to publicity we shall consider what further publicity is necessary in due course. As Members will understand, I was referring to publicity after the passing of the Bill because the Government can present the case only after the Bill is passed. I also said that a great deal of discussion has taken place in the press, radio and television—as those of us who live in Scotland know only too well—about the consequences and the very real points which are being considered as we consider this Bill for the people of Scotland.
I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I fully understand the complexity of housing legislation; and indeed I gave a commitment to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. The draftsman is no doubt working now on Schedule 6 and the consequences of any amendment which we may bring forward on Report to enable, if we can, people to understand better this legislation and what is meant. I gave that commitment and I stand by it.
I now come to the substance of this particular amendment. It is not often that we see an amendment tabled to a Bill which has the potential for uncontrolled draining of the public purse that this one has. Taken at face value, this new clause would require—I repeat, would require—the Secretary of
316
State to make grants to voluntary organisations to meet such expenditure as they choose to incur on training and information about this Bill. There is no discretion for the Secretary of State to say no, whether or not it can be afforded; and although the provision refers to "reasonable expenditure", there is no test of what can be considered reasonable. I find that very strange, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Certainly the Secretary of State would have no right to consider the quality of the activity he would be required to pay for.
I understand that the amendment arises from suggestions which I have read made by the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. In their supporting material SACAB says that they receive increasing demands for help and that housing advice is one component of that demand. I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who is not aware of the valuable service which CAB supply. Part of their appeal lies in the broad range of problems in which they deal. It is surprising therefore that they should promote a funding arrangement confined only to matters within this Bill.
Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that the amount of money which is devoted this year from the taxpayer to the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is almost £1 million a year in Scotland alone, which is a very nice proportion of the whole.
Before I finish, I should perhaps refer to Shetland because the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned it. I am well aware of the situation in Shetland; but the confusion about legislation has not played a part in that particular situation. As I understand it, the situation in Shetland is one which we were discussing yesterday; namely, whether local authorities should become the landlords of even more tenants.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in speaking to this amendment, understood very well what the consequences could be. The Secretary of State already has a power, in Section 197 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, to give grants to voluntary bodies providing advice or training. That power is extensively used at present.
In addition, the Government intend that Scottish Homes will provide training, education and publicity over a wide section of issues in housing. Scottish Homes will also be able to assist others providing services of this sort, whether financially or in some other way—by, for example, providing premises. The new policies which this Bill will implement will, we recognise, require greater information to be available to tenants and landlords. That is common ground on all sides of the Chamber. Scottish Homes' powers will be ample for this purpose. It will be open to SACAB and any other body intending to provide a housing-related information or advice service to approach Scottish Homes for assistance.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, having heard what I have said, will realise that this particular amendment is unnecessary in these circumstances and that it is one that no Secretary of State could possibly accept and nor could I.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is satisfied

317
with that reply because I doubt if anybody in the Chamber is satisfied with it. The noble Lord told us that the Government are being astonishingly generous in finding the sum of about £1 million for the citizens' advice bureaux and other organisations in Scotland to provide information. That is the cost of a number of houses in the West End of London. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out that the voluntary organisations in Scotland are facing a very substantial additional burden. The noble Lord spent a great deal of time in expressing doubt about the drafting of the amendment and he expressed deep shock at the failure of the amendment to give discretion to the Secretary of State. If he had said that, despite that, he would produce an amendment on Report to deal with the defects of this amendment, we should have been more satisfied.
Perhaps I can specifically ask the Minister a fairly simple question: what additional resources are the Government going to give as a result of the passage of this exceptionally complicated piece of legislation? How much extra money are they intending to provide to the voluntary organisations in Scotland if the Chamber does not adopt this amendment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening at this particular stage in the Bill in the way that he has. I find it very interesting that he should suddenly take an interest in this particular point. I shall not go any further than I have done regarding funds which will be available to Scottish Homes to deal with the major problem of explanation of this Bill and the consequences of it. It will be provided by the Secretary of State at the appropriate moment in the appropriate way in the appropriate amount.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he will answer the specific question which I asked. I shall repeat it. Are the Government prepared to give any additional assistance to citizens' advice bureaux in Scotland as a result of the passage of this legislation? Yes or no?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall not give a yes or no answer to that; I cannot. I intend to be sure that everything is done through every voluntary agency in Scotland and through Scottish Homes so that people understand the consequences of the Bill when it is passed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The last reply of the Minister has been a little more forthcoming than earlier replies. He said that the amendment almost amounted to a blank cheque to the organisations; but it states:
"The Secretary of State shall make such grants as are necessary to the voluntary organisations to meet any reasonable expenditure".
That surely retains judgment in the hands of the Secretary of State as to what is necessary and reasonable. To that extent it is not a blank cheque for every voluntary organisation to receive unlimited resources. If we consider the burden that will now be carried by these organisations, and particularly the Citizens' Advice Bureau, for them to have almost £1 million at their disposal to deal with current problems is not a frightening sum in my book.
318
I recommend that the Minister should have a quiet talk with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—or is it the department for enterprise?—to see how much money is being spent on government publicity in order to promote his department and his objectives. It amounts to millions of pounds. It is the greatest godsend to the advertising industry. I am not suggesting that we should go overboard in this connection.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not believe that we can have it both ways. The noble Lord wants publicity for the difficulties faced by tenants under this new Bill and yet he is saying that the Government are spending too much money through the department for enterprise. I cannot understand it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: That is not what I am saying. I am suggesting that the noble Lord should have a quiet talk with the Minister in charge of promotion of government enterprise, because the sum of almost £1 million for the citizens advice bureaux is a drop in the bucket compared with his budget. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young, understands the greater importance of communicating and explaining. I was commending the Minister to have a further look at the situation because we are talking about rather poor people who are living in a new situation with new regulations about changing one's landlord; about the fairness of rents and about the ability to transfer one's tenancy. Those are complicated matters for ordinary people to understand.
I do not know how much the recent publicity from the Secretary of State in connection with the poll tax amounted to, but every household in Scotland received an explanatory document on the subject. Incidentally, it did not explain that in the City of Glasgow it is now calculated that the poll tax will be about £520 per person. That fact was not explained in the document but it is the latest figure. I do not want to drag a political argument into the debate at this stage, but people need help and guidance on matters which affect their whole daily living. Voluntary organisations are entitled to ensure that such assistance is readily available. As has been said so often, this is a very complex Bill which affects the lives of many poor people who are not perhaps experts in the field, but it affects them deeply.
I do not propose to take the amendment to a Division. However, I look for a more acceptable undertaking from the Minister at some stage as to how much and how this complex Bill is going to be explained to the public in Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 63, line 13, at end insert—
(". In subsection (3)(b) of section 24, for the words "some other person residing in it or to threats of violence from some other person residing in it and" there shall be substituted the words "a spouse, ex-spouse, partner, ex-partner or member of the family or to threats of violence from a spouse, ex-spouse, partner, ex-partner or member of the family who is' ").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also take Amendments Nos. 77 and 78. These are amendments which relate to domestic violence and are aimed to close what has now become a loophole in existing legislation for the housing of battered women. The introduction of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act aimed, among other things, to give women suffering from marital violence additional protection if they wished to remain in the matrimonial home through, for example, an exclusion order on their husbands. It was never intended to be used as an alternative to re-housing under the homelessness legislation if the latter is what the woman chose, having taken into account all the relevant factors including the safety of herself and her children and also the urgency of the matter. That fact was made clear during the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act as it went through Parliament.
However, since the Act came into force, two problems have emerged concerning women who wish to be rehoused. The first is the definition of homelessness. There are many established and erudite arguments on the definition of homelessness. Section 24 states that,
"a person is homeless for the purpose of this Act if he has no accommodation, and a person is to be treated as having no accommodation for those purposes if there is no accommodation … which he … has a right or permission, or an implied right or permission to occupy.".
In conjunction with the rights contained within the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act that provision has resulted in some local authorities refusing to house women under the homelessness legislation, unless they have first sought to exercise their right under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act regardless of their wishes and also, obviously by definition, regardless of their safety. That practice can only have been reinforced by a Court of Session decision; namely, MacAlinden v. Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. The judge upheld the local authority's decision not to classify a cohabitee as homeless after she had to leave her partner's house. Lord McDonald found that the pursuer had,
"retained an implied right to occupy Manly's house notwithstanding that, at that date, he had withdrawn any permission to occupy he may have granted. She had a clear right under section 18 of the 1981 Act to seek a grant of occupancy rights."
She was thus not homeless.
The Scottish code of guidance on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the Scottish Development Department circular make it clear how local authorities should respond to battered women who seek rehousing. Nevertheless, some local authorities continue to ignore that and thus legislation is required to ensure that battered women are not forced into a course of action which would put them at risk. We believe that this group of amendments will provide the necessary framework of legislation. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for suggesting that we take Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78 together. I have
320
listened carefully to what he said and of course I have knowledge of the case to which he referred.
Let me first comment on Amendment No. 76, and state immediately that I understand the concern and difficulties experienced by persons who fear so much for their safety that they feel they can remain no longer in the family home. This amendment seeks to extend the scope of the current legislation to allow a person to be accepted as homeless, even though he or she has accommodation, if he or she cannot occupy it for fear of violence not only from someone resident in the house (as the 1987 Act at present provides) but also from a non-resident spouse, partner or family member. This amendment would, in other words, remove the occupancy criterion in such circumstances.
I am aware that during this Bill's consideration in another place a fairly similar, but wider, amendment was tabled. However, the Minister responding to the debate could not recommend acceptance of that amendment as it would have unreasonably extended local authorities' duties. It would have obliged them, for example, to rehouse residents in areas with a reputation for violent behaviour.
Although Amendment No. 76 before us today is much narrower, I am disinclined to recommend it to the Committee, I believe that we should be looking to the police, and to the criminal law generally, to offer the householder protection against acts of violence, no matter whether they are perpetrated by a resident family member or otherwise. This should not be the role of housing departments through their responsibilities under the homeless persons legislation. For this reason, therefore, although I accept the reasons for the noble Lord proposing the amendment, I am unable to agree to it. However, I will look at what the noble Lord said and I may return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before my noble friend considers what he will do with the amendment, does not the Minister accept the point that it is impossible for the police to watch over a person who is in fear of violence? It just cannot be done. You cannot place a policeman outside each house to see that the wife, husband, daughter, son—or whoever it may be—does not come to visit. The exercise is far too costly and the police manpower is not available to carry it out.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Such disputes are undoubtedly some of the most difficult cases with which the police have to deal. Domestic violence of one kind or another creates immense problems for the police. As we know, they have substantial pressure upon their resources at present.
However, the noble Lord indicated that he was prepared to look at the matter between now and the next stages of the Bill. I hope that he will do so and, if necessary, discuss the matter with the Scottish Association of Police Officers which I am sure will echo what I have just said.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is not just a case of placing a police officer outside a house. It may be a case of placing a police officer inside a house.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very grateful to the noble Lady. That was a point of which I too was thinking. It would be much better to give the spouse a house than to go to the extent of stationing a police officer inside, both in terms of peace of mind and also probably in purely economic and financial terms.
I am grateful that the Minister has taken the burden of the amendment and will look at it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I was dealing with the first amendment, which is quite important and the one at which I wish to have a close look. Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
I am aware that a new clause on these lines was discussed in another place. The amendments seek to prevent a local authority refusing to class a person as homeless (or classifying him as intentionally homeless) solely because he does not intend to seek to exercise the rights conferred by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The 1981 Act, however, provides a useful first remedy for spouses or partners to seek to gain occupancy of the accommodation they had shared but no longer wish to share. In general I do not believe it is right to seek to bypass the provisions of the 1981 Act, which can result in the non-applicant spouse being excluded from occupancy. It is my belief that the 1981 Act should be tried as a first step in attempting to resolve domestic difficulties of the kind with which this amendment is concerned.
I do not believe it would be right for us to put into statute provisions which could oblige a local authority, if a person declares himself or herself unwilling or unable to pursue the remedies available under the 1981 Act, and if it believes the applicant to have a priority need for accommodation, to secure accommodation for that person. I accept that there may be occasions when for good reasons it would be unreasonable to expect the person concerned to follow the 1981 Act procedures. In such circumstances it could be correct for the local authority to look on that person as homeless and not intentionally homeless in terms of the 1987 Act provisions. But I suggest it should be left to the local authority in carrying out its duty under Section 28 of the 1981 Act to make inquiries as to whether an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, to look at the circumstances which apply in relation to the use or otherwise of the 1981 Act remedies and to reach a judgment accordingly. I do not believe we should fetter the local authority's discretion in the way that Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 suggest.
In conclusion, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that I shall look very carefully at the first amendment that he proposed. I regret that I cannot accept the other two.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I can understand the noble Lord's reluctance to accept the other two amendments. I think we should be grateful that he has gone as far as he has on Amendment No. 76, after taking advice on whether there is any overspill effect from Amendment No. 76 on to Amendment No. 77. Perhaps that will give some reassurance to certain
322
people. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 63, line 23, at end insert—
("5A. In section 151 (interpretation of Part VII) in subsection (2) for the words "139(3), 140(1) and (2) and 144(1) and (2)" there shall be substituted the words "139, 140 and 144".").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, to which I shall speak as well if your Lordships will permit me, are of a purely drafting nature to correct the consolidation measure, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. In that regard I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for bringing these points to our attention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert—
(24A. In section 299 (jurisdiction of sheriff) in subsection (2)(b) for the words "paragraph (9) of Schedule 21" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 20".").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 64, line 44, at end insert—
(". In Section 106 (power of Local Authority to arrange for the execution of works of improvement by agreement with the owner) after the word "applies", insert "or any works of improvement or repair or other services which are to be carried out to or relate to a house sold under the provisions of Part III of this Act or Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. The Local Authority may make such reasonable charge as it thinks fit for its services."").
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment. Under the existing law the local authorities have certain powers to carry out, with the agreement of private owners, repairs to the private owners' houses and to charge for them. Some of those services are confined to substandard houses. Others, such as non-grant-aided repair and improvement work, would be covered by competitive tendering and would be in exactly the same position as any other form of building work. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that district councils are allowed, with the agreement of the other landlord or co-operative, to carry out the work if it is desired on all sides that they should do so. This is just an enabling power. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I think that this amendment would considerably extend the types of works for which local authorities' direct labour organisations could submit tenders. It would expand the direct labour organisations' potential workload far beyond what they were originally established to do to a quite unreasonable extent. As a result, I cannot accept the proposal.

323
The right to buy provisions of Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the tenants' choice provision in Part III of the Bill certainly mean a reduction in public sector housing. This will have implications for the size and structure of direct labour organisations, but the fact that there will be less work in future for direct labour organisations in their traditional roll does not mean that we should artificially seek to give them new functions, particularly since to do so would be likely to damage employment prospects in the private sector.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not think I said anything about direct labour organisations being deprived of work. Nor would I wish that the private sector should be deprived. I was merely suggesting that if its tender were cheaper than others it should be allowed to do the work; and if the Government's aim is market forces, why not? If the direct labour organisation happens to put in a cheaper tender than anybody else, why are the private builders to be protected from fair competition?
The Earl of Dundee: In a sense I take the noble Lord's point. If anybody tendering for a job of work is able to be cheaper than somebody else, if we believe in competition and if we want the job of work to be done as efficiently as possible, we cannot rule that out. Nevertheless I must refer him to the remit of local authorities over commercial and competitive work.
We believe that local authorities should engage in commercial activities only to the extent necessary to discharge their statutory functions. In general they should not supply goods or services to others unless they are statutorily required to do so. I have little doubt that if that general principle were to be breached for the purpose of houses transferring to the private sector there would inevitably be further pressure for other exceptions for works related to other services transferred to the private sector. We must draw the line somewhere and I believe that the general principle I have just explained strikes the right balance.
In this case, the amendment would very significantly alter the relationship between direct labour organisations and private sector contractors, particularly small local firms. I do not believe that this would be in the best interests of consumers. In the light of that explanation I wonder whether the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am always interested in the theory of competition. It appears that if there is an efficient direct labour organisation that can undercut and supply to the consumer cheaper services, it is not to be allowed to do so by the Government as a matter of principle because it would interfere |with| the small builder. In a sense that is what the Minister has just said. If he does not agree with that, no doubt he will say so.
The other point is that one can easily visualise a situation where one has a group of houses—a small scheme or several streets in a large scheme—and an arrangement that they will be improved. While that is
324
being planned, part of it is transferred to Scottish Homes and part stays with the local authority. Why is it to be prohibited that the transferred homes should get their repairs done, as originally planned under competitive tendering, by the direct labour organisation? It seems to me that it is denying competition.
I do not wish to delay the Committee. If through these kinds of political principles which seem to deny the market economy and fair competition the Government intend to continue their war against local authorities, perhaps this is not the issue upon which to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 81A to 94:
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 c. 56
1A. In section 27(4) (right to home loss payment) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) a right to occupy the dwelling as a statutory assured tenant within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;".").
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 c. 65.
1B. In Schedule 28, in paragraph 10 (urban development corporations, displacement of persons), after the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1984" there shall be inserted the words "or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 5, at end insert—
("Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 c. 59
1C. In section 22 (interpretation) in the definition of "tenant" for the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1971" there shall be substituted the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and a statutory assured tenant as defined in section 16(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 13, after ("10(2)") insert ("—
(a) in paragraph").
Page 67, line 15, at end insert (";
(b) after paragraph (b) there shall be added the following paragraph—"; or
(e) as respects Scotland, a letting of land under an assured tenancy or under what would be an assured tenancy but for any of paragraphs 3 to 8 and 12 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988." ").
Page 67, line 36, at end insert—
("4A. In section 55 (no subletting by secure tenant without landlord's consent) for the words ", nor shall Part VII of that Act" there shall be substituted the words "or an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, nor shall Part VII of the said Act of 1984".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5A. In section 103 (certain provisions of Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 not to apply) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5B. In section 128 (recovery of possession of house to which Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 applies) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 67, line 47, at end insert—
("5C, In section 145 (recovery of possession of overcrowded house that is let) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
(6A. In section 180 (effect of control order), in subsection (4)—

(a) after the words "the Act") there shall be inserted the words "and paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (which excludes lettings by local authorities from being assured tenancies within the meaning of the Act)";

(b) after "1984" where a second occurs there shall be inserted the words "or an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988,";

(c) for the words "protected or statutory" where they second and third occur there shall be substituted the words "protected, statutory or assured".

(d) for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "those Acts".").

Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6B. In section 311 (interpretation of sections 308 to 310), in subsection (2), in the definition of "interest" after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or of a statutory assured tenant within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6C. In section 328 (duty to inform tenant of assignation of landlord's interest), in subsection (6), after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "and a statutory assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6D. In section 338 (interpretation), in subsection (1) in the definition of "tenancy" after the word "applies" there shall be inserted the words "and a statutory assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
("6E. In Part II of Schedule 3 (suitability of accommodation), in paragraph 1(a) after "1984" there shall be inserted the words "or under an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 81A to 94 en bloc. Though the above list of amendments to Schedule 9 looks a little formidable, these are simply consequential amendments which insert references to assured tenancies in earlier legislation, notably the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may make one short comment here, partly to support the remarks made earlier by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am intrigued as to why in Schedule 8 we have,
"Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987",
and then in Schedule 9,
"Minor and consequential Amendments".
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that schedule apply to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Furthermore, the amendments which my noble friend Lord Dundee has moved, including Amendments Nos. 86 to 94, also apply to the Housing (Scotland) Act. Would it not have been rather easier for the people who have read the Bill and understood it for all the amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act to be in the one schedule? That is my only question.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I raise the same point that was raised on Tuesday by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about the way in which this legislation is now being drafted. If one were to set out to make the Bill as un-understandable as possible, it would be difficult to improve on what has been done with the schedules. I take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I find it fascinating that, first of all, we
326
have minor amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act; then we have miscellaneous amendments in Schedule 8 to the Housing (Scotland) Act; and in Schedule 9 we have minor and consequential amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act.
Surely, there could have been a more reasonable way of dealing with it. What is the difference in the same Act between minor and consequential amendments, miscellaneous amendments, and minor amendments? What is the difference in classification? Can that matter be explained?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to what has been said, surely in the name of sanity my noble friend can take advice from his department as to whether this can be made a little more readily intelligible. It can be done quite simply. It is a matter of collecting the various consequential amendments and putting them in a schedule. It is true that some legal adviser might have to work for eight hours to do it—it could not take him longer—but I believe it would be worth the candle to do that.
The Earl of Dundee: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour. He has written to me and to my noble friend Lord Sanderson with several further amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which he proposes should be made in Schedules 7 and 8. We are having his suggestions looked at. I will write to him once we have given them proper consideration.
Perhaps I may comment that Schedule 9 flows from the main provisions of the Bill and Schedule 8 is connected but not consequential. Schedule 7 is retrospective and Schedule 8—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Would the noble Earl explain what "connected but not consequential" means?
The Earl of Dundee: We are in areas of drafting which—
Lord Morton of Shuna: With respect, we are not in areas of drafting; we are in areas of English—
Baroness Seear: Or Scottish.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The language is English, but we shall willingly go into the Scottish language if necessary. We got into rows about ish and various other matters earlier on. Surely in this Committee we can get something which is explainable in simple English. Sir Ernest Gowers wrote a book on the subject some years ago. Please may we understand what the Government are trying to do?
The Earl of Dundee: I am all for being assisted by Sir Ernest Gowers and even by Dr. Johnson himself. This is certainly what we shall endeavour to do. I am very happy to take back the comments of all noble Lords and to see in what way we can improve and put right what may need to be put right.
Perhaps I may comment that Schedule 9 flows from the earlier provisions of the Bill. The sense in which the word "connected" is used here concerns a

327
matter not flowing directly from earlier provisions. "Consequential" is used in the sense of a matter that does so flow.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does that mean that if a matter is not flowing directly it is disconnected and therefore you call it connected? Is that what is meant?
The Earl of Dundee: I hesitate in making direct connections from what the noble Lord has just said. I believe that it may not be profitable to prolong this discussion. As I say, I am very happy to take back all the contributions which have been made to the Committee and see if something can be done which will meet with the approval of Sir Ernest Gowers and Dr. Johnson.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, column 3, leave out lines 49 to 52.
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply brings that part of the repeal schedule in line with Clause 64, to which it relates. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Page and line references are to Bill 82 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(aa) the ship is registered in the United Kingdom in pursuance of an Order in Council under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Government ships); or
(ab) the ship is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II of this Act which is eligible to be registered under that Part of this Act by virtue of section 13 below, but—

(i) is excluded from registration under that Part of this Act by regulations made under section 12 below, and

(ii) is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom; or'.

2 Clause 4, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
'(5A) A ship shall, in accordance with section 12(2)(a) below, not be entitled to be registered if it is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II.'.
3 Clause 4, page 4, line 23, leave out from 'ships)' to end of line 25.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 87. These amendments are concerned with the description of certain ships and fishing vessels, and specifically with ships owned by the Government and registered under the 1906 Act and fishing vessels excluded from registry under Part II of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I express gratitude to the Minister for the supply of notes as to meaning of the amendments, without which I should have been in some difficulty. Useful work has been done by the Minister's department. It is also helpful to have the indication that a large number of the amendments are of a technical character. I have checked what happened on Report in another place, and there were no debates. We should now be able to get through the business with a fair amount of speed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I shall make certain to pass on his thanks to the various people in my department who contributed to the notes that were made available.
I shall deal with the amendments as quickly as I can, but there are several upon which I should like to dwell.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 5, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'authorised' to 'under' in line 21 and insert by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence'.
5 Clause 5, page 5, line 23 leave out 'be treated as duly served on the owner' and insert ', where the person to be served is the owner of a registered ship, be treated as duly served on him'.
6 Clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
These amendments made minor drafting alterations to the provisions in Clause 5 concerning the service of documents connected with criminal proceedings for a breach of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 6, page 6, line 8, leave out from 'notice,' to 'not' in line 11 and insert 'give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them'.
8 Clause 6, page 6, line 14, leave out from 'may' to 'is' in line 16 and insert 'give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them not to register the ship if he'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
These amendments (which I hope are self-explanatory) were brought forward in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee in another place to the honourable Member for Stretford. We are obliged to him for drawing attention to what might have proved a loophole in our registration procedures. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 7, page 6, line 24, leave out 'require the owner of the shop' and insert 'served on—

(a) the owner of the ship, or

(b) any representative person for the time being appointed in relation to the ship,

require that person'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 60 to 64.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to supplement existing Parts I and II of the Bill for the serving of notices by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concerning evidence of eligibility to register and the termination of registration of a ship or fishing vessel. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 7, page 7, line 2, leave out 'so' and insert 'for the time being'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Duty of owner of registered ship to secure termination of any overseas registration.
'(1) Where a ship becomes registered at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the ship shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ship which becomes registered in pursuance of section 53B of the 1894 Act (transfer of registration under that Act from overseas territory).'.
12 Clause 12, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a fishing vessel becomes registered under this Part at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the vessel shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the vessel's registration under the law of that country.
(4B) Any person who contravenes subsection (4A) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. I spoke to the amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 13, page 10, line 32, after 'directed', insert 'and controlled'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. The amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place and accepted by the Government. To the criteria for eligibility to register a fishing vessel, it adds that its operations be not only directed but also controlled from within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 13, page 11, line 43, leave out '(b)' and insert '(d)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.
The amendment remedies an error in the selection of the appropriate powers of inspection from Section 27 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act to be available to a person appointed under this clause to investigate a fishing vessel's eligibility to be registered. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 13, page 12, line 9, after 'means', insert '—
(a)'.
16 Clause 13, page 12, line 10, after 'Kingdom', insert ', or
(b) a local authority in the United Kingdom'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

331
These are technical amendments to make it quite clear that a local authority that has shares in a fishing vessel is a "qualified person" for the purposes of the Bill's fishing vessel provisions. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 21, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (1) also applies to any fishing vessel which (notwithstanding that it is not entitled to be so registered) is for the time being registered in the United Kingdom under Part I of the 1894 Act or section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 (registration of small ships).'.
18 Page 17, line 19, leave out 'registered under this Part' and insert 'a British ship and is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom'.
19 Page 17, line 20, leave out 'so registered,' and insert 'registered under this Part,'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
Amendment No. 17 closes a loophole to ensure that Clause 21 can be enforced against vessels that breach the new registration requirements. There are two categories of ship not presently covered by the clause: a ship registered under Part I of the 1894 Act, in which there is a minority foreign ownership, and a ship registered on the small ships' register.
The other amendments are consequential to earlier changes to the Bill, which provided that fishing vessels eligible to register under Part II but exempted from doing so are nonetheless British ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 24, page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
Subsection (4) of Clause 24 was originally included to ensure that entries of ownership in the fishing vessel register could be used as conclusive evidence in legal proceedings. Following consultation with representatives of the fishing industry on the merits of this subsection, we have agreed that this is too sweeping. It might, for example, leave the owner liable if the register was not up to date. The removal of subsection (4) will not result in any weakening of the general legal validity of information in the register, which will still be evidence, but not conclusive evidence, of ownership. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 29, page 22, line 4, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (5A)'.
22 Clause 29, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
'(lA) Where, at the time when a ship is not fit to go to sea as mentioned in subsection (1), any responsibilities of the owner with respect to the particular matters by reason of which the ship is not fit to go to sea have been assumed (whether wholly or in part) by any person or persons other than the owner, and have been so assumed by that person or (as the case may be) by each of those persons either—

(a) directly, under the terms of a charter-party or management agreement made with the owner, or

(b) indirectly, under the terms of a series of charter-parties or management agreements,

the reference to the owner in subsection (1) shall be construed as including a reference to that other person or (as the case may be) to each of those other persons.'
23 Clause 29, page 22, line 6, leave out 'Those matters' and insert 'The matters referred to in subsection (1)'.
24 Clause 29, page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
25 Clause 29, page 22, line 28, at end insert—
'(5A) It shall also be a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section to prove—

(a) that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the relevant responsibilities, namely—

(i) where the defendant is the owner, his responsibilities with respect to the matters referred to in subsection (5)(a), or

(ii) where the defendant is liable to proceedings under this section by virtue of subsection (1A), so much of those responsibilities as had been assumed by him as mentioned in that subsection,

had at the time of the alleged offence been wholly assumed by some other person or persons party thereto; and

(b) that in all the circumstances of the case the defendant had taken such steps as it was reasonable for him to take, and exercised such diligence as it was reasonable for him to exercise, to secure the proper discharge of the relevant responsibilities during the period during which they had been assumed by some other person or persons as mentioned in paragraph (a);

and, in determining whether the defendant had done so, regard shall be had in particular to the matters mentioned in subsection (5B).
(5B) Those matters are—

(a) whether prior to the time of the alleged offence the defendant was, or in all the circumstances ought reasonably to have been, aware of any deficiency in the discharge of the relevant responsibilities; and

(b) the extent to which the defendant was or was not able, under the terms of any such charter-party or management agreement as is mentioned in subsection (5A)(a)—

(i) to terminate it, or

(ii) to intervene in the management of the ship,

in the event of any such deficiency, and whether it was reasonable for the defendant to place himself in that position.'

26 Clause 29, page 22, line 36, after '(7)', 'In this section—
"management agreement", in relation to a ship, means any agreement (other than a charter-party or a contract of employment) under which the ship is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner (whether on behalf of the owner or on behalf of some other person);
"relevant responsibilities" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (5A);
and'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to

333
26. I shall at the same time speak to Amendment No. 28.
Noble Lords will recall that there was discussion on Second Reading of the need to ensure that, where a ship is managed by a ship management company or is demise-chartered, the duties that fall on the ship's owner should fall instead—or in addition—on the manager or charterer. This point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and was put to the Department by the GCBS. I subsequently brought forward in Committee an amendment to Clause 29 having this effect. The amendment improved the Bill, but did not go far enough, as I acknowledged on Report when replying to points made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I undertook then to bring forward further amendments to take account of demise-chartered ships. Again, that was a point about which the GCBS had expressed concern.
I also undertook, again in response to my noble friend, to bring forward an amendment to enable parties to a management agreement to cite that agreement in their defence. As I anticipated, time did not permit us to make this further adjustment before the Bill passed to another place. They were therefore made in Committee there, with the final piece of fine tuning (the inclusion of the word "reasonably" in the new subsection (5B)(a) in Amendment No. 25 on Report) to meet a concern expressed by the Equipment Leasing Association, some of whose members provide finance for the acquisition of ships but whose involvement often does not go beyond that.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the clause is now in better shape as a result of our deliberations in this Chamber and of the changes made as a result in another place. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to their improvement. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, on behalf of the GCBS, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the extra care that was taken to include these amendments which he promised when the Bill left us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 29, page 22, line 36, leave out from 'sea' to end of line 37 and insert 'shall, in a case where the service for which a ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 107, 110 and 111.
The purpose of these amendments is to enable Clause 29 and other provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts to deal correctly with ships that do not go to sea but which ply on inland or sheltered waters. The final two lines of Clause 29(9), as at present drafted lack precision when applied to subsections (1)
334
and (5). Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that if a ship is habitually used only on voyages that do not go to sea, its fitness, or otherwise, and arrangements to make it fit, have to be judged accordingly. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 29, page 22, line 37, at end insert—
'(8) References in this section to responsibilities being assumed by a person under the terms of a charter-party or management agreement are references to their being so assumed by him whether or not he has entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for them to be assumed by some other person.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 which I spoke to with Amendments Nos. 21 to 26. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 30, page 23, line 1, leave out from beginning to second 'and' in line 7.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 59, 106, 124 and 126.
Noble Lords will note that Amendment No. 59 inserts a new clause.
These amendments tidy up the application of Clauses 29 to 32 to unregistered ships, particularly the application to ships which might be termed "unregistered UK ships" when outside UK ports or territorial waters. Their primary aim is to enable all four clauses to be applied to unregistered ships with a UK connection when outside UK waters, in the same way as UK-registered ships are so covered. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Clause 30, page 23, line 22, leave out from 'ship' to 'any' in line 24 and insert—

'(a) is chartered by demise, or

(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement within the meaning of section 29,'.

31 Clause 30, page 23, line 25, leave out 'to that person,' and insert—

'(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or

(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b), or

(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager,'.

32 Clause 30, page 23, line 27, leave out 'either the owner or that person' and insert 'the owner, the charterer or any such manager'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32.
I undertook on Third Reading that the Government would bring forward amendments to extend to any charterer or manager the duties that subsection (1) places on shipowners to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safe operation of the ship. That is the effect of these three amendments. Each person in the chain, from owner to manager, has to take the steps that it is reasonable for him to take, to ensure the ship is run safely. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 32, page 26, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 Clause 35, page 30, line 27, leave out from 'condition' to 'his' in line 28 and insert 'subject to which the Secretary of State has given'.
35 Clause 35, page 30, line 35, after 'any', insert 'other'.
36 Clause 35, page 30, leave out lines 38 to 46 and insert—
'(c) may, if the condition relates—

(i) to the provision of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, or

(ii) to the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of the works in question or to the taking of any other measures for the purpose of, or in connection with, controlling the movements of ships in the vicinity of those works,

be varied by the Secretary of State in the interests of the safety of navigation (whether or not the operation has been completed) in such manner as he thinks fit for the purposed of enhancing the effectiveness of any such aids or measures as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) above; and
37 Clause 35, page 31, line 22, at end insert—
'(5A) After section 36 insert—
"Imposition by Secretary of State of safety requirements in cases of emergency.
36A.—(1) Where at any time after the Secretary of State has given his consent for an operation falling within section 34(1)(a) of this Act ("the relevant consent"), it appears to him—
(a) that any danger to navigation has arisen by reason of—

(i) any substantial damage to any works to which that consent relates, or

(ii) any other substantial and unforeseen change in the state or position of any such works, and

(b) that it is urgently necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of navigation,
336
he may, by notice served on the person to whom the consent was given, impose on that person such requirements as he thinks fit with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those matters are—

(a) the provision on, or in the vicinity of, the works in question of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, and

(b) the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of those works.

(3) Where the person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) above fails to comply with any requirements of the notice within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time when it is served on him or as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State may make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that those requirements are implemented.
(4) Where under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State makes any such arrangements, he shall be entitled to recover the cost, as certified by him, of making those arrangements from such one or more of the following, namely—

(a) the person to whom the relevant consent was given, and

(b) any other person or persons who is or are, in accordance with section 34(4A)(b) of this Act, bound by any condition subject to which that consent was given,

as he thinks fit.
(5) Once the requirements of a notice under subsection (I) above have been complied with by the person on whom it was served or implemented in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above, those requirements shall, subject to subsection (6) below, he treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as conditions subject to which the relevant consent was given.
(6) Section 34(4A)(a) and (d) of this Act shall not apply to any such requirements; but if it appears to the Secretary of State (whether on the application of any person or otherwise) that the circumstances giving rise to the urgent necessity for the imposition of the requirements no longer exist, he shall revoke them by notice served on the person to whom the relevant consent was given.
(7) Where the Secretary of State has served a notice under subsection (1) above in respect of any particular circumstances, subsection (5) above shall not preclude him from serving a further notice under subsection (1) in respect of those circumstances.
(8) A notice may be served by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above whether or not—

(a) the operation in question has been completed, or

(b) any condition was imposed by him, on giving the relevant consent, with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) above." '.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 37. These are amendments to Clause 35 of the Bill, which amends the Coast Protection Act 1949.
Amendment No. 36 was brought forward by the Government on Report in another place, in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee by my honourable friend the Minister of State. It closes off what had been seen as a possibility of abuse in the application of the new subsection (4A)(c) to be inserted by this clause after Section 34(4) of the 1949 Act.
Amendment No. 37 follows from Amendment No. 36 in that when considering the points raised with regard to the variation of original conditions

337
imposed on a consent under the 1949 Act, we realised there was a need to allow for measures to be taken in an emergency. We were thinking, for example, of when an oil rig sustained damage affecting its marking or causing its capsize, or when a span of a bridge became unsafe.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 simply make minor drafting improvements to the text of Clause 35(4). They have no effect of substance. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 36, page 34, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—

'(a) before the operation to which the licence relates has been begun, with written particulars of the operation and with a plan showing where it is to be carried out, and

(b) once the operation has been carried out, with a notification of the fact, and with such plans and additional information relating to the completed operation as he may require for the purpose of determining whether, and if so what, changes should be made to any chart or other publication produced under his superintendence.'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.
The amendment tightens up the requirement for information about a proposed operation to be provided to the Hydrographer of the Navy, where a harbour authority has granted a licence to carry out such an operation in its area, in exercise of its powers to license operations of the kind described in Section 34(1) paragraphs (a) to (c) of the Coast Protection Act 1949. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 After Clause 37, insert the following new clause
Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based.
'(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the provision of shipping services to which this section applies to be prohibited except where such services are provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands.
(2) This section applies to the following shipping services—

(a) The carriage of goods or passengers by sea—

(i) between ports in the United Kingdom, or

(ii) between a port in the United Kingdom and an offshore installation in United Kingdom waters, or

(iii) between offshore installations in United Kingdom waters;

(b) the carriage of passengers by sea on voyages or excursions beginning and ending at the same port in the United Kingdom, other than voyages or excursions which involve calling at any port or ports outside the British islands (whether passengers disembark there or not); and

(c) shipping services (other than the carriage of goods or passenger by sea) which are—

(i) provided by means of ships operating out of ports in the United Kingdom (whether so provided within United Kingdom waters or not); and

338

(ii) provided within United Kingdom waters by means of ships operating out of ports outside the United Kingdom.

(3) An order under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the circumstances in which shipping services are to be regarded for the purposes of the order as being provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands;

(b) authorising the Secretary of State to issue licences sanctioning the provision of shipping services to which this section applies, notwithstanding that they are not provided as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, in cases where he is satisfied that there is no-one willing and able to provide the services in question as mentioned in that paragraph;

(c) requiring the payment, in connection with applications for such licences, of fees determined with the approval of the Treasury;

(d) exempting any prescribed class or description of shipping services from any prohibition imposed by virtue of subsection (1);

(e) authorising the Secretary of State, or a person appointed by him for the purpose, to serve notices requiring the production or furnishing of documents or information appearing to the Secretary of State or any such person to be necessary to enable him to determine such matters as may be prescribed;

(f) with respect to the manner of service of notices in pursuance of paragraph (e).

(4) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different circumstances;

(b) make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(5) The provisions of an order under this section shall not discriminate between shipping services provided by different persons on the basis of the place of registration of the ships by means of which the services are provided.
(6) Section 728 of the 1894 Act (appointment of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to—

(a) any order under this section, or

(b) any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,

as it has effect in relation to any such regulations or licence as is mentioned in paragraph (h) of that section; but section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (powers of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to any inspector appointed by virtue of this subsection with the omission of paragraphs (f) to (h) of subsection (1) of that section.
(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—

"offshore installation" has the same meaning as in the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;

"prescribed" means prescribed by an order under this section;

"shipping services" means—

(a) the carriage of goods or passengers by sea,

(b) services provided by offshore support vessels, and

(c) such other services provided by means of ships as the Secretary of State may specify in an order under this section;

"United Kingdom waters" means waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom and waters in any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.'.

40 Insert the following new Clause—
Enforcement of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based).
'(1) Where—

(a) any ship is used in the course of the provision of any shipping services to which section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) applies, or

339

(b) anything is done on board a ship with a view to its being used to provide any such services,

and the provision of those services is prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of that section and is not sanctioned by any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7)), the master and the owner of the ship shall each be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where the ship—

(a) is chartered by demise, or

(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement,

the reference in subsection (1) to the owner of the ship shall be construed as including a reference—

(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or

(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b) above, or

(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager.

(3) Any person who—

(a) in connection with an application for such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or

(b) in purported compliance with the requirements of any notice served on him by virtue of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

knowingly or recklessly furnishes information which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who—

(a) without reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) fails to comply with the requirements of any such notice, or

(b) intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys a document which he has been required to produce in pursuance of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against the master of a ship to prove—

(a) that the master did not know and had no reason to suspect that, in the circumstances of the case, the provision of the shipping services referred to in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection was prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or

(b) that the master had reasonable grounds for believing that the provision of those services was sanctioned by a licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section.

(7) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against a person other than the master of a ship to prove that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the right to determine the purpose for which the ship in question was being used at the time of the alleged offence was wholly vested in some other person or persons party thereto (whether or not any such other person or persons had entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for the right to be vested in some other person).
(8) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply to offences falling within those subsections wherever committed.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State; or

340

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.

(11) Any document required or authorised, by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) shall, where it is to be served on a person who was, at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) the owner of the ship in question, or

(b) such a charterer by demise or manager of that ship as is mentioned in subsection (2),

be treated as duly served on that person if—

(i) sent to him by post at his last-known address (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business), or

(ii) left for him at that address,

or if the document is served on the master of the ship in question.
(12) In this section "management agreement" has the same meaning as in section 29.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
We turn here to a rather more interesting couple of amendments. Noble Lords may recall that during our debate on the Bill on Second Reading I said, in reply to remarks by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, that we were examining closely the complex question of reservation of cabotage. I said then that closure of our coasts was our last resort, and that it was far from being the ideal solution.
Not surprisingly perhaps, the question of cabotage was raised again when the Bill was considered in another place, and in Committee there provisions protective of UK interests, but falling short of closure of our coasts, were tabled by my honourable friends the Member for Eastleigh and the Member for the Isle of Wight. My honourable friend the Minister of State expressed sympathy with the objectives of these provisions, and acknowledged that if negotiations on the liberalisation of cabotage did not succeed, then the Government would need to seek another way forward. He subsequently brought forward the two new clauses now before us.
We are continuing to pursue vigorously, in current negotiations under the German presidency, the liberalisation of cabotage throughout the European Community. But there is no doubt that we face an uphill task, against determined opposition, and if the negotiations in Brussels do not bring early success, the enabling powers contained in these new clauses—which would allow us to introduce a test of establishment for operators wishing to carry out cabotage in UK coastal waters—give the option of an alternative course of action.
The test of establishment would apply equally to British and foreign-flagged vessels, and would mean that while non-British companies would still be allowed to compete in our cabotage trades, they would all have to be established in the British islands—that is, the UK, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
If the power is invoked, operators wishing to do UK cabotage will have to ensure that they are providing shipping services from a permanent place of business in the British islands, and not merely from an agency or trading as a "Brass plate company"; But

341
the clause enables my right honourable friend to issue waivers where he is satisfied that there are no established companies willing and able to provide a specified service.
An order to implement the power would be subject to affirmative resolution. Before making such an order there would be consultation with interested parties. If the negotiations in the EC succeed the power would be revoked.
In 1986—the last year for which information is available—British flagged shipping had over 70 per cent. of the total UK cabotage market by estimated value. The total value of the UK cabotage market was estimated at very approximately £440 million. We would far rather open up other coastal traffic to British ships than introduce restrictions of any kind on our own coasts. But if the Community negotiations are protracted with no early prospects of success, we need to be able and ready to, as it were, level the present unevenness of the playing field.
The second new clause provides for enforcement. Under this clause the owner, master and charterer or other manager will be guilty of an offence where cabotage is provided in contravention of an order. Offenders will be liable to a fine of up to £50,000 on summary conviction, and on indictment to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine. These are of course maximum penalties. It will be for the courts to decide in the normal way the precise penalties in any particular case.
We recognise that the master of the ship may have believed in good faith that the shipping company he was working for was established or had been given a waiver for the cargo in question. We have therefore provided that if the master can prove either of these circumstances it will be considered a defence for the purpose of proceedings. Similarly, we have introduced a defence for charterers who can prove that at the time of the offence the ship was in fact chartered wholly by another person. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said, this matter was raised during the Second Reading debate. At that time I stressed again and again that we had pressed for action. We welcomed, incidentally, Clause 36, which I believe is now Clause 37. This concerned readiness to take action against unfair competition from other countries. During the Second Reading debate I and other noble Lords on both sides of the House emphasised that EC partners were in effect breaching Community laws on shipping, particularly on the question of cabotage and coastal shipping, and that our trading competitors were giving an unfair advantage to their shipping. While we welcomed the new clause, we stressed that action should be taken on cabotage.
I am glad that the Minister has referred to the figures, which were given by the Secretary of State in a Written Answer on 30th March. He mentioned that the total market of the United Kingdom coastal trade was some £440 million. A figure was also given by one
342
of my honourable friends in another place that the total cabotage market in the European Community is no less than £1,450 million. So there is a great deal of possible shipping business off the coasts of other countries. I believe that with the exception of Britain only three European Community states allow foreign ships into their coastal trade. Therefore the two new clauses are of vital importance.
What will cause the Secretary of State to activate the two clauses? They are enabling clauses and require certain things to be done before they can be activated. Can he say more about the nature of the discussions in the Council of Transport Ministers, particularly if, with the exception of Britain, only three other countries allow foreign ships into their coastal trade. What will be the whole effect of cabotage when the open market comes into effect in 1992? In general, we welcome the new clauses.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the General Council of British Shipping welcomes the new clauses. But the council and I hope very much that they will not have to be implemented. We see them especially as improving the bargaining position of the United Kingdom Government within the EC. However, if they have to be implemented, at least they will redress the unfair balance that reigns at the moment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I was about to make exactly the same point. I assume that the Secretary of State will make a commencement order under these clauses only if the negotiations in Brussels fail. I assume that that is the position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to these two clauses by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords. As I said in my opening remarks, we very much hope that progress will be made under the German presidency. Informal meetings have already taken place and we have been promised that a half-day's discussion at the June Transport Council will be given over to this subject. If, however, we fail to achieve anything under the German presidency and no progress is made, that would be the occasion for giving careful consideration to bringing the new clauses into effect. I hope that we shall achieve something.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out, the potential market in the EC is of considerable value. I believe strongly that our shipping companies will be well able to take advantage of that market. Come 1992, we must assume that that market will be open to us. That is certainly our wish. Indeed our wish would be for it to be open before that time. That is how we intend to use these powers should it be necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 39, page 38, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 39.
42 Page 39, line 12, leave out 'of a capital nature'.
43 Page 39, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 26.
44 Page 39, line 36, after '(1)' insert 'The Secretary of State with the consent of.
45 Page 39, line 37, leave out 'they think' and insert 'he thinks'.
46 Page 39, line 40, leave out 'the Secretary of State under section 662(2)' and insert 'a general lighthouse authority under section 662A'.
47 Page 39, line 43, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
48 Page 39, line 46, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
49 Page 40, line I, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
50 Page 40, line 2, leave out from 'be' to end of line 3 and insert 'paid out of money provided by Parliament.'.
51 Page 40, line 6, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
52 Page 40, line 7, leave out 'Treasury may from time to time direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may determine with the consent of the Treasury'.
53 Page 40, line 8, leave out 'Treasury may so direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may so determine'.
54 Page 40, line 12, leave out 'Treasury may so direct' and insert 'Secretary of State may so determine'.
55 Page 40, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may vary or revoke any determination made by him under subsection (4) of this section.'
56 Page 40, line 13, leave out 'Treasury under subsection (4) of this section' and insert 'Secretary of State under that subsection'.
57 Page 40, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In consequence of subsection (1) above, section 663 of the 1894 Act (power of Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money on security of mortgage effected under section 662 of that Act as originally enacted) shall cease to have effect.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 57 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 117, 119 and 122. These amendments arise from technical difficulties with Clause 39 which, regrettably, were not identified until after the Bill had been published. The changes are of form rather than of substance and are designed to put the borrowing powers of the general lighthouse authorities on a similar basis to other public corporations and generally to ensure that the provisions more closely reflect present-day government accounting rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in raising this point on these amendments. We have said on a number of occasions that Britain is the only European country to have such charges for lights and navigational aids. There has been pressure, in particular from the ports and now the Ports Federation, that this should be made a national charge and should not be charged on ships coming to our ports. We are the only European country to have such charges. In considering all these amendments, I wonder whether the Government have given any further thought to transferring these charges to the national charge.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not be surprised when I give him the same answer that I have given in
344
the House on a number of occasions when the issue of light dues has been raised. We are not the only European country to charge light dues. The Republic of Ireland does, and I have an idea that Sweden does as well. However, we have over the years considered the notion of transferring these costs to the taxpayer but we have rejected that notion. We believe that within the limits of what is practicable the user should pay. I should also point out that about 90 per cent. of dues are paid by foreign registered ships and the principal beneficiaries of such a change would be the owners of those ships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
'Application of Merchant Shipping Acts to ships chartered by demise to the Crown.
(1) This section applies to a ship if for the time being—

(a) the ship is—

(i) registered in the United Kingdom, and

(ii) in the service of a government department ("the relevant department") by reason of a charter by demise to the Crown; and

(b) there is in force under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Government ships) an Order in Council providing for the registration of Government ships in the service of the relevant department.

(2) Where this section applies to any ship, the following statutory provisions, namely—

(a) the provisions of the Order in Council referred to in subsection (1)(b) (excluding those relating to registration under the Order), and

(b) the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts (as they apply by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 and that Order in Council),

shall (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) have the same effect in relation to that ship as they have in relation to a Government ship in the service of the relevant department (whether referred to as such or as such a ship registered in pursuance of that Order in Council).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the registration enactments shall have effect in relation to a ship to which this section applies in like manner as if it were not, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, a ship belonging to Her Majesty.
(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that any statutory provision falling within subsection (2) or (3) and specified in the Order—

(a) shall not have effect in accordance with that subsection in relation to a ship to which this section applies, or

(b) shall so have effect in relation to such a ship, but subject to such modifications as are specified in the Order.

(5) In the application of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts (other than a provision of the registration enactments) in relation to a ship to which this section applies, any reference to the owner of the ship shall be construed as a reference to the relevant department.
(6) An Order in Council under this section—

(a) may make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient; and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—

"government department" includes a Northern Ireland department;

"Government ship" means a Government ship within the meaning of section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906;

"the registration enactments" means—

(a) the provisions of Part 1 of the 1894 Act down to and including section 67 of that Act;

345

(b) section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983; and

(c) Parts I and II of this Act.'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. The purpose of this new clause is to clarify the position in law of British registered ships which are under charter to the Crown and in the service of government departments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
59 After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
Application to unregistered ships
'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying any description of unregistered ships and directing that such of the provisions of sections 29, 30 and 32 as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) shall extend to unregistered ships of that description, or

(b) shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified,

with such modifications (if any) as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prejudicing the application to unregistered ships of section 29(1)(a) or section 32(2)(a)(iii).
(3) In this section "unregistered ship" means a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.
60 Clause 49, page 45, line 17, after '49' insert—
'(1A) Any notice required or authorised to be served by the Secretary of State under Part I or II may be served by post.'.
61 Clause 49, page 45, line 21, leave out from 'which' to end of line 26 and insert 'a managing owner is for the time being registered under section 59(1) of the 1894 Act.'.
62 Clause 49, page 45, line 29, leave out from 'owners' to end of line 31.
63 Clause 49, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of document by post) a letter containing—

(a) a notice to be served on any person in pursuance of subsection (1) above, or

(b) a notice required or authorised to be served under Part I on a representative person within the meaning of that Part,

shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to that person at the address for the time being recorded in relation to him in the appropriate register; and a letter containing any other notice to which subsection (1A) above applies shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to the last known address of the person to be served (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business).'.
64 Clause 49, page 45, line 32, at end insert—
"'the appropriate register"—

(a) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered ship, means the register in which the ship is registered under Part I of the 1894 Act, and

(b) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered fishing vessel, means the register kept under Part II of this Act;'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 to 64 which I have already spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
65 Clause 51, page 46, line 9, leave out 'exceptions, adaptations and'.
66 Clause 52, page 46, line 32, at end insert—
"'modifications" includes additions, omissions and alterations;'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is to adopt a common definition of the word "modifications" throughout the Bill. It has the effect of making certain words in Clause 51 unnecessary, and hence their deletion by Amendment No. 65. The definition is in fact identical to that contained in Section 50 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 Clause 52, page 46, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) In the application of this Act to Scotland any reference to a defendant shall be construed as a reference to a defender.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. This is a straightforward technical amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 Clause 53, page 47, line 18, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) With the exception of—

sections 35 and 36,

section 42, and

section 52(3) and (4) and Schedules 6 and 7 so far as they amend or repeal any enactment which does not extend to Northern Ireland,

this Act extends to Northern Ireland.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. This is a technical amendment to make it clear that certain of the Bill's provisions do not apply in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
69 Clause 53, page 47, line 19, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
70 Schedule 1, page 48, line 24, at end insert—
'(aa) in paragraph (iv), for the words from "of which" onwards substitute "the legal title to which is vested in him or (as the case may be) the corporation, whether alone or jointly with any other person or persons:";'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
This amendment establishes that a person's declaration as to ownership of shares in a ship must precede the determination of his entitlement to be registered as owner. It removes a circularity in Section 9(IV) of the 1894 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
71 Schedule 1, page 48, line 30, at end insert—
"'(vi) In the case of a ship which is for the time being registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, a declaration that, if the ship is still so registered at the time when it becomes registered under this Part of this Act, he will take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.'.
72 Schedule 1, page 49, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—

'(i) for the words from "ceasing" to "every owner" substitute "in the event of such a ship—

(a) ceasing to be entitled to be registered (whether because a majority interest in the ship is no longer owned by persons qualified to be owners of British ships or for any other reason), or

(b) becoming registered otherwise than under this Part of this Act in the United Kingdom,

every registered owner", and

(ii) for the words from "book and" onwards substitute "and the registry of the ship shall terminate forthwith.";'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
These are two further amendments consequent upon the new clause concerning the termination of foreign registration to which I spoke on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
73 Schedule 1, page 50, line 10, leave out 'in the manner provided by subsection (1) of this section'.
74 Schedule 1, page 50, line 17, leave out 'and in any such case' and insert—
'(5) Where the registry of a ship terminates by reason of—

(a) any notice given in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, or

(b) any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 7(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (power to direct removal from register in certain cases),".

75 Schedule 1, page 50, line 19, after 'notice', insert 'or direction'.
76 Schedule 1, page 50, line 20, at end insert—
'(6) Where the registry of a ship terminates—

(a) under subsection (1) or (4) of this section, or

(b) as mentioned in subsection (5)(b) of this section,

the termination of its registry shall not affect any entry made in the register so far as relating to any undischarged registered mortgage, or any existing certificate of mortgage, of that ship or of any share in it.
(7) Subsection (6) of this section shall not apply to an entry in the register in a case where—

(a) the mortgage in question becomes registered under Part 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, or

(b) the registrar is satisfied that every person appearing on the register to be interested as a mortgagee under the mortgage in question has consented to the entry ceasing to have effect.".'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 en bloc.
I should also like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 103, 115 and 120. These are technical amendments to the provisions of Section 21 of the 1894 Act concerning the preservation of mortgage entries in the shipping register and the surrender of certificates of registry where the registration of a ship has been terminated. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Schedule I. page 50, line 22, after 'If, insert 'a ship becomes entitled to be registered,'.
78 Schedule 1, page 50, line 23, leave out from 'Islands,' to 'then' in line 24.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
These amendments clarify that to be eligible for provisional registry the essential condition is that the ship should be entitled to be registered in accordance with Clause 4 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Schedule 1, page 53, line 41, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the former port of registry shall, on being notified by the registrar of the new port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry, terminate the registration of the ship in his register.'.
80 Schedule 1, page 54, line 18, at end insert '(subject to subsection (4) of this section)—'.
81 Schedule 1, page 54, line 21, leave out '(subject to subsection (4))'.
81 Schedule 1, page 54, line 26, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the new port of registry shall notify the registrar of the former port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 en bloc which I spoke to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
83 Schedule 1, page 57, line 25, leave out 'in'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83. This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
84 Schedule I. page 57, line 30, leave out '(4)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 121 and 125.
This amendment removes the requirement in Section 85 of the 1894 Act to levy dues on space occupied by deck cargo carried by ships engaged in foreign-going trade. It is prompted by a study of the structure of light dues currently being undertaken by a working party of officials and representatives of the general lighthouse authorities. Their report, expected soon, is expected to include a recommendation that light dues on deck cargo be abolished. This would require primary legislation, and so this amendment allows effect to be given to the repeal of Section 85, if my right honourable friend decides to accept this recommendation. Amendments 116, 121 and 125 are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
85 Schedule 2, page 58, line 29, leave out 'registered in pursuance of paragraph (c)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 85. This amendment will enable regulations to provide for the expiry and renewal of the registration of all fishing vessels after a prescribed period. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do Commons in the said amendment. (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Schedule 2, page 59, line 42, leave out 'which has ceased to have effect: and insert ', whether in force or not;'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. This amendment corrects a deficiency in the Bill as drafted by providing that offences of misusing certificates of registration embrace misuse not only of expired certificates but also of valid ones. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
87 Schedule 2, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
'Construction of references in other enactments to fishing vessels excluded from registration
8. References in any statutory provision (apart from section 2(1) (ab)) to fishing vessels excluded from registration by regulations under section 12 shall be construed as references to fishing vessels which, being eligible to be registered under this Part by virtue of section 13, arc excluded from registration by such regulations (and are not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom).'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.
I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
88 Schedule 3, page 61, line 34, leave out 'mortgage' and insert 'interest or, if the mortgage has by then been executed in accordance with paragraph 2(2) and produced to the Secretary of State, subject to that mortgage'.
89 Page 62, line 2, leave out from 'effect' to the end of line 5 and insert—

'(a) if the notification is withdrawn, or

(b) at the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the notification, unless the notification is renewed in accordance with sub-paragraph (5).

(5) The person by whom any such notification is given may renew or further renew the notification, on each occasion for a period of 30 days, by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State—

(a) before the end of the period mentioned in subparagraph (4)(b), or

(b) before the end of the current period of renewal, as the case may be.

(6) Any notification or notice purporting to be given under this paragraph (and anything done as a result of it) shall not have any effect if the Secretary of State determines that it was not validly given.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 and 89.

351
The first of these amendments is technical and ensures that where notice of an intended mortgage on a vessel is given and the vessel is subsequently registered without that mortgage being recorded, the mortgagee's notice of intended mortgage shall be recorded. That will preserve his right to priority. The second provides for the notification to lapse after 30 days, unless renewed: under the Bill as originally drafted, notification of an intended mortgage would last indefinitely unless withdrawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Schedule 3, page 62, line 8, leave out 'when the mortgage money has become' and insert 'if the mortgage money or any part of it is'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. This is a straightforward amendment to Schedule 3 to make it clearer that a mortgagee's power of sale over a registered fishing vessel also applies where a mortgage is repaid in instalments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Schedule 3, page 62, line 34, at end insert—
'Transfer of mortgages from one system of registration to another
9.—(1) Regulations may provide—

(a) for the transfer to the register of undischarged mortgages that have been registered under Part I of the 1894 Act and affect ships registered under that Part of that Act which become registered vessels otherwise than in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and

(b) for any provisions of this Part to have effect in relation to any such mortgages, or in relation to any mortgages transferred in pursuance of paragraph 4 of that Schedule, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations may also provide—

(a) for the transfer to registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act of undischarged registered mortgages affecting registered vessels which become ships registered under that Part of that Act; and

(b) for any provisions of that Part of that Act to have effect in relation to any such mortgages subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—

(a) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may make provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act, and for the recording of such information in the register kept under this Part; and

(b) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may make corresponding provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission and recording of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in the register kept under this Part.

(4) In this paragraph "regulations" means regulations made under section I2.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. The purpose of this amendment is to enable regulations to provide a facility for transferring registered mortgages between the merchant ship register under Part I of the 1894 Act and the new fishing boat register under Part II of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 Schedule 5, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'Merchant Shipping Law Amendment Act 1853 (c. 131).
Omit section 13 (power to commute pensions and grant superannuation allowances).'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92, with which I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 94 to 102, 112, 114 and 118.
This is the first of a group of technical amendments to clarify the interpretation of remaining references to the former mercantile marine fund. They are wholly consequential upon technical provisions contained in the Bill amending Sections 676 and 677 of the 1894 Act and Section 1 of the 1898 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Page 73, line 49, at end insert—
'2A. At the end of section 546 (salvage of cargo or wreck) add—
"(2) In this section "tidal water" means—

(a) any waters within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides; or

(b) the waters of any dock which is directly, or (by means of one or more other docks) indirectly, connected with any such waters.";

and the existing provisions of section 546 shall accordingly constitute subsection (1) of that section'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. Section 546 of the 1894 Act provides that when assistance is given to a vessel in distress near UK coasts or in tidal water within UK territorial seas a salvage award is payable to those who render that assistance. A recent judgment of this House in the Goring case has drawn attention to the fact that under the 1894 Act tidal harbours do not count as tidal water and has raised doubts about the legal basis of salvage awards for services rendered within enclosed docks.
The problem relating to tidal waters has its origin in the drafting of the 1894 Act, which combined in Part IX two separate pieces of legislation and inadvertently altered the law by applying the definition of tidal water from one piece of legislation to the salvage provisions of the other. The 1894 Act

353
was intended to consolidate existing legislation under which salvage applied to all tidal waters, including tidal harbours and so, by convention should not have altered the law.
The amendment does not seek to alter the decision in the Goring case, which concerned salvage in a non-tidal river. It makes clear that salvage is payable for assistance given in tidal harbours and enclosed docks. The practice in the industry has been to assume that the salvage laws apply in docks and harbours, and the amendment, which has the support of the GCBS and the British Ports Federation, will ensure that that continues.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
94 Page 74, line 18, leave out '(1)';
95 Page 74, line 19, after '(a)', insert 'in subsection (1)—
(i)'.
96 Page 74. line 20, leave out 'by virtue of and insert 'in accordance with'.
97 Page 74, line 22, leave out 'and (b)' and insert '(ii)'.
98 Page 74. line 23, at end insert ', and
(iii) for paragraph (1) substitute—
"(1) any other sums which are by virtue of any enactment (as it has effect in accordance with subsection (1A) of this section) required to be paid into the Consolidated Fund in accordance with this section."; and
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) References (however phrased) in any enactment not contained in this section to the payment of sums into, or to the carrying of sums to the account of, the Mercantile Marine Fund shall be construed as references to the payment of sums into, or to the carrying of sums to the account of, the Consolidated Fund in accordance with this section, and connected phrases shall be construed accordingly.".'.
99 Page 74, line 27, leave out 'by virtue of and insert 'in accordance with'.
100 Page 74. line 29, leave out 'and'.
101 Page 74, line 30, at end insert—
'(c) for paragraph (o) substitute—
"(o) any other amounts which are by virtue of any enactment (as it has effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section) payable out of money provided by Parliament in accordance with this section."; and
(d) at the end add—
"(2) References (however phrased) in any enactment not contained in this section or in Part XI of this Act to the charging of amounts on, or to the payment of amounts out of, the Mercantile Marine Fund shall be construed as references to the payment of amounts out of money provided by Parliament in accordance with this section, and connected phrases shall be construed accordingly.';
and accordingly the existing provisions of section 677, as amended by sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) above, shall constitute subsection (1) of that section.'.
102 Page 74, line 30, at end insert—
'9A. In section 731 (exemption from rates) —

(a) for "Mercantile Marine Fund" substitute "General Lighthouse Fund"; and

(b) omit "or by the Board of Trade" and "or of the Board of Trade".'.

103 Page 74. line 47, at end insert—
'MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1906 (c. 48)
Omit section 52 (provisions with respect to mortgages of ships sold to foreigners).',
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 94 to 103. These are technical amendments to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
104 Page 75, leave out lines 2 and 3.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104, and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 123 at the same time. The deletion from the Bill of the repeal of Section 10 of the 1970 Act under which a nominated government officer may decide disputes between a seaman and his employer over the amount of wages due was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, during our consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government could not then agree that that section should remain on the statute book. But in the light of further entreaties by the Opposition in Committee in another place we are now content that, although seldom invoked and perhaps in truth no longer serving a very useful purpose, Section 10 should after all be retained.
Amendment No. 123 simply deletes the reference to Section 10 from the Bill's schedule of repeals.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 Page 75, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 76 and insert—
'Inspection and admissibility in evidence of copies of certain documents.
75A.—(1) Where under any enactment a document is open to public inspection when in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen—

(a) there may be supplied for public inspection a copy or other reproduction of the document instead of the original; but

(b) the original shall nevertheless be made available for public inspection if the copy or other reproduction is illegible.

(2) Where the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen destroys any document which has been sent to him under or by virtue of any enactment, and keeps a copy or other reproduction of that document, then—

(a) any enactment providing for that document to be admissible in evidence or open to public inspection, and

(b) in the case of a document falling within subsection (1), that subsection,

shall apply to the copy or other reproduction as if it were the original.
(3) For the purposes of this section, and of section 695(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 in its application to documents in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, a copy is to be taken to be the copy of a document notwithstanding that it is taken from a copy or other reproduction of the original.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105. The amendment is concerned with efficient administration.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
106 Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
'9. In section 92 (unregistered British ships) —

(a) omit "British"; and

(b) after "employed in them," insert "or shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified, in either case".'.

107 Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
'10. In section 96 (non-sea-going ships)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after "20," insert "27, 32 (in its application in relation to section 27),", and

(ii) after "60," insert "76,"; and

(b) for subsection (2) substitute—

"(2) In relation to ships which are not sea-going ships—

(a) section 32 of this Act shall (in its application in relation to section 27) have effect as if the words "goes to sea in a ship" were omitted and the words "is on board a ship while it is on a voyage or excursion" were inserted after "to give it"; and

(b) section 45 of this Act shall have effect as if for the words "goes to sea or attempts to go to sea" there were substituted the words "goes on a voyage or excursion or attempts to do so" and the words "if in the United Kingdom" were omitted."'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. I have already spoken to them.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Page 76, line 14, leave out 'under' to end of line 15 and insert—

'(a) section 23(6) or 28(1) of this Act, or

(b) any Order in Council made by virtue of section 20(1) of this Act, or

(c) any regulations made by virtue of section 20(4) or 21(1) of this Act,".'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. During the Bill's Committee stage in this House, we amended what is now Clause 46 to extend the liability of officers of companies for offences under the Act to cover offences under any regulations made under the Act as well as under the Act itself. At the same time we made a similar change to the equivalent provision, Section 46 of the 1979 Act, to include offences committed under regulations made under Section 21 of that Act. The present technical amendment further extends that liability to cover offences committed under regulations made under Section 20 of the 1979 Act, which is concerned with the prevention of pollution from ships.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
109 Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
'In section 49 (orders and regulations), as amended by section 11(3) of the Safety at Sea Act 1986—

(a) in subsection (4A), at the beginning insert "Except where subsection (4B) of this section applies,"; and

(b) after that subsection insert—

"(4B) Regulations falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4A) of this section, if contained in the same instrument as any regulations requiring to be approved in draft by virtue of that subsection, shall also require to be so approved.".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109. This is a technical amendment to simplify the parliamentary procedure for safety regulations made under Section 21 of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act, which is concerned with safety and health on ships.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
110 Schedule 6, page 77, line 46, at end insert—
'and the reference in that subsection to proceeding to sea shall, in a case where the service for which the ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.";'.
111 Page 77, line 53, at end insert—
'3. In section 692 (enforcing detention of ship), at the end add—
"(5) Any reference in this section to proceeding to sea includes a reference to going on a voyage or excursion that does not involve going to sea, and references to sending or taking to sea shall be construed accordingly.".'.
112 Page 78, line 15, at end insert—
'MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1965 (c. 47)
In section 1(4) (tonnage regulations), for the words from "section 83" to "the Exchequer" substitute "sections 83 and 676 of the principal Act as requires the payment of fees into the Consolidated Fund".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
113 Page 80, line 22, at end insert—
'INSHORE FISHING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984 (c. 26)
In section 9(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "British fishing boat", for the words from "exempted" to "that Act)" substitute "excluded from registration by regulations under section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 or owned wholly by a person who is (within the meaning of Part I of the. Merchant Shipping Act 1894)".'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their

357
Amendment No. 113. It is a minor amendment, consequential on the changes made by Part II of the Bill to ensure that the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 reflects the new definition of fishing vessels.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Schedule 7. page 81, line 3, at end insert—

'1853 c. 131.

Merchant Shipping Law Amendment Act 1853.

Section 13.'.

115 Page 81, column 3, leave out lines 19 to 21.
116 Page 82, line 31, column 3, leave out '(4)".
117 Page 82, line 40, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 663.'.

118 Page 82. line 45, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 731, the words "or by the Board of Trade" and "or of the Board of Trade".'.

119 Page 82, line 57, at end insert—

'1898 c. 44.

Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act 1898.

Section 2(4).'.

120 Page 83, column 3, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

'Sections 51 and 52.'.

121 Page 83, line 12, at end insert—

'1965 c. 47.

Merchant Shipping Act 1965.

Section l(2)(c). In Schedule 1, the entry relating to section 85 of the 1894 Act.'.

122 Page 83, line 12, at end insert—

'1968 c. 13.

National Loans Act 1968.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 2, the words from "Section 663" onwards.'.

123 Page 83, line 15, column 3, leave out 'Section 10.'.
124 Page 83, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 92, the word "British".'.

125 Page 83, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 31.'.

126 Page 83, column 3, leave out line 54 and insert—

'In section 37, subsection (4), and in subsection (6) the words "British".".

127 Schedule 8, page 85, line 30, at end insert—
'3A. Section 4(5A) of this Act shall not have effect at any time before the commencement of Part II of this Act, and shall not affect the operation of section 12(3) of this Act in relation to fishing vessels which are registered under Part I of the 1894 Act immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 to 127. These are all amendments to the Bill's schedule of repeals consequent upon various changes made earlier in the Bill, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home Office: Unopened Correspondence
5.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the failure to open 207,000 letters in the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office for five months.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question arises from the report of the Home Affairs Committee which was published this week. I am aware that that particular part of the duties of the Home Office is not the direct responsibility of the Minister. Nevertheless, the facts which that report revealed shocked many and surprised some—including the Ministen—when I raised it on several occasions in our discussions on the Immigration Bill.
On 4th March at col. 401 of the Official Report, when I stated that I heard that there were 100,000 letters waiting unanswered in Lunar House, the Minister responded:
"My Lords, it does not surprise me. Well, it does surprise me in one respect because that is a lot".
When I described the situation regarding administrative delay in dealing with incoming immigrants' applications, the noble Lord said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said there was enormous administrative delay in dealing with incoming immigrants and that Lunar House was—I do not know whether he used the word 'disgraceful', but he certainly implied it".— [Official Report, 4/3/88; col. 399.]
By the time that I have told the House the facts that I am going to retail, I think noble Lords will agree that, if I only implied it, I should have said it.
The situation which is described in the report of the Home Affairs Committee is as follows. By 21st December 1987 there was a backlog of 154,000 letters unopened and unacknowledged at Lunar House. By 21st February 1988 the figure had risen to 207,000. That was before I had made any speeches and therefore I cannot be responsible for that rather shocking increase in numbers.
There were 149,000 applications for citizenship, 58,000 for variations of leave and 70,000 for passports which—and I quote the report because I do not quite know what it means,
"had been held at Lunar House indefinitely".
Thus the situation which I raised in the immigration debates was not a figment of my imagination. Indeed, with characteristic modesty, I understated the position.
The situation seems to have arisen for the following reasons. First, Lunar House has been chronically under-staffed. Secondly, administrative delay has been used for some years as a means of immigration control. Thirdly, no lessons were learned from the experience of the past. Fourthly, Home Office forecasting was way out. The actual numbers involved were 300,000 in terms of applicants. The forecast was 90,000 to 200,000 out.
Under-staffing at Lunar House is not a recent phenomenon but it has got worse. To see that this is so one has only to read the CRE report of some years ago. One can talk to organisations such as JCWI, dealing with these matters on a daily basis, which will

359
say that over the past four years the usual time lag in dealing with an application to stay, perhaps on the basis of marriage, was 18 months. The target for some sort of response to an application was that it should occur within six months. That might mean simply that you received a letter asking for more information.
The other reason for the chronic shortage of staff at Lunar House is that it was low on the Home Office list of priorities. The prison service, the manning of Gatwick and Terminal 4 all came before Lunar House. That means that the consumers (in this case a number which eventually totalled 300,000) were simply not taken into account—neither their interests nor their fears, nor their convenience. If I am right, that is the voting membership of about six constituencies. If they had been voters in six constituencies, I suspect that they would have been treated rather more properly.
On other occasions I have mentioned the administrative delay which has been used as a means of immigration control and I do not propose to repeat that argument. However, it is one of the factors that have led to what the report calls "administrative chaos".
The third reason is that the lessons of the past were not learned. In 1982, after the British Nationality Act, the Home Office was caught by surprise when there was an upsurge of applicants. I suggest that the noble Earl looks at the report of the Home Affairs Committee of 1983 and at the evidence submitted by the JCWI. On page 13 of that report, the Home Affairs Committee said:
"The method by which the calculation",
that is to say the forecast,
"was done gives us little encouragement for the future".
How right it was. Even I, reviewing a book in The Times Educational Supplement in 1983, commented on the fact that the Home Office had been caught short in 1982 and said that I hoped that it would not be caught short again in 1987. As for forecasting, as Sir Brian Cubbon admitted to the Committee, it was way out—short by 200,000.
All that having been said—and it is quite a lot—there is a further question that demands answer. Why was action not taken earlier? On 19th October 1987 there was a meeting at Lunar House between the staff and the unions. At that meeting it was pointed out that a crisis was imminent and it was asked what the contingency plans were. Nothing, it appears, was done.
One must ask oneself whether the Minister responsible was unaware of the impending crisis and whether in December he was unaware that there were 154,000 unopened, unacknowledged letters at Lunar House. As far as I can discover, he took no action and indeed he did not go to Lunar House until—as far as I know—12th February 1988. As late as 18th April, when the Home Affairs Committee report was ordered to be printed, the Committee still found it necessary to conclude with these words:
"We consider the Home Office failure to open and acknowledge promptly 207,000 letters lying unopened or unacknowledged on 21st February 1988 to be scandalous and the overall aim of dealing with
360
all applications for registration by December 1989 to be totally unacceptable".
It recommended that the possibility of photographing and returning the passports be urgently reconsidered. It recommended too that the Home Office should make adequate resources available immediately to deal with the backlog of letters and adopt the aim of completing the process of all applications received by the end of 1988.
The Select Committee has achieved quite a lot. It has goaded the Minister responsible—Mr. Renton—into belated action. He has announced in another place and repeated in a letter to The Independent today that 80 per cent. of the applications have now been opened and that part of the task which will take longer is to consider each of the 300,000 applications and issue a certificate of citizenship. What we would like to know is what he means by "take longer". I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer that.
If that can be done now as a result, one can only conclude, of the report of the Home Affairs Committee, why could it not be done six months ago? I would remind your Lordships that we are not dealing with a statistical exercise; we are dealing with 300,000 human beings and their families. They have been neglected, maltreated and subjected to stress and anxiety. That is absolutely indefensible. I hope that the noble Earl will acknowledge that. I hope that he will give some kind of assurance that such a situation will never recur; that if it does recur some very drastic action is taken; and that the Ministers responsible will act in the way expected of them.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not putting my name down to speak as I had not intended to intervene. However, what we have just heard is quite lamentable. To think that the Government are prepared to place 300,000 people in that kind of position is something of which they ought to be ashamed.
I think we can leave aside the people applying for citizenship. One would not get too worked up waiting to hear whether one has citizenship, because one is living here anyway. However, the people who have applied to have their stay extended will be living under severe stress. Noble Lords will recall that recently we were very busily passing a Bill to make overstaying a continuing offence.
The Minister anxiously told the House how wicked the people were who had overstayed; but some of those people will have overstayed because they have not received a reply to the application for an extension of their stay. In a cavalier fashion, the Government have made them wait. I feel that we need to have a little contrition from the Minister. I hope that when the Minister replies he will show some justified contrition.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make an immediate apology of a very humble nature to the House for my absence during the speech of the noble

361
Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Pitt. The approach of Labour Day and May Day has obviously intensified the speed of the business in this House. I understood that the debate on this Unstarred Question would take place at an hour much later than the present one.
Having apologised, I should like to make a few observations on how the administration in the Home Office appears to the outside world—especially to those very concerned with the applications that are made to the Home Office—to be in a somewhat chaotic condition. My information was that clear warning was given by those representing the administrative staff of the Home Office at Lunar House about the complications of the British Nationality Act. The question of having to apply for registration and the doubts that were cast in the minds of many people in this country as to where they stood on nationality and immigration meant that there would be a whole horde of applications made to the Home Office. It meant that the staff would be quite incapable—as indeed it was—of dealing with them. It appears that that warning was ignored.
The figure of over 200,000 given in the Unstarred Question was, I am informed, correct until literally a few months ago. Further, I am told that after an intensive campaign the number of unopened envelopes has been reduced from around 200,000 to 20,000. That is still a very alarming figure. I ask the Minister whether it is true that 100 new recruits have been promised to the Home Office administration in order to deal with this terrible backlog. Is it correct to say that, even if that promise were made, it may be difficult to fulfil as a result of recruitment difficulties, largely because of the very low wages that are being offered and the accommodation difficulties at Lunar House?
Is it correct that those who administer affairs at the Home Office have been told that, quite apart from this backlog, having regard to all the complexities and difficulties of immigration in this day and age (and indeed of nationality and so on) in future a minimum of 200 recruits are needed to fill posts on a permanent basis? Bluntly, what is the Home Office doing about all this?
6.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think the whole House is glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, managed to find his magic carpet to get him here on time. If it is any consolation to him (and I do not think it is very much) it happens to all of us sometimes—or usually.I thought it was going to happen to me this evening, and it was a very disagreeable experience. Fortunately I managed to get here a few minutes in advance of the noble Lord and therefore appeared to be more composed than I was. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his composure after having got here at such short notice.
Unfortunately he missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in which he drew attention to a matter of considerable and legitimate concern. If I may say so, I thought he enjoyed doing it. He had seen the rabbit and therefore went after it. I do not blame him for that. He knows full well that
362
it is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs for there to be 207,000 unopened letters in a government department. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked for a little contrition from me. He will have it. Of course that situation is wholly unacceptable. The fact that it happened has caused considerable anxiety both within the Government and without.
There are reasons this happened. I shall rehearse them to your Lordships this evening and try to explain the action we have taken. But it is not the result of a cavalier, uncaring or incompetent attitude; nor is it a deliberate means, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested, of restricting immigration. It is the result of an unexpected state of affairs. I am glad to be able to say that all the 207,000 letters referred to have now been opened. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seems to find this funny, but his noble friend accused the Government of not having opened the letters for five months. I told the noble Lord that they have now been opened. I am glad that he finds that extremely funny.
The recent publicity about the figure of 207,000 has arisen following the publication on Monday 25th April of the Home Affairs Committee's report. On 24th February 1988 Sir Brian Cubbon, who was then the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and said that there were, at that time, 207,000 items of unopened—or opened but unacknowledged—mail. Of these, 149,000 were applications for citizenship and 58,000 related to immigration work. These were mainly variations of leave.
Sir Brian Cubbon also explained that the Home Office was dealing with the problem by redeploying 160 staff and by using extensive overtime working at Lunar House. As a result of this, the position now is that the 149,000 applications for citizenship which had been received before the deadline of 31st December 1987 will all have been opened and acknowledged and all passports which were included with them will have been returned by tomorrow evening. The application forms for citizenship had made clear that passports should not be sent with the applications. This did not, though, deter applicants from so doing. The remainder of the 207,000 letters—58,000 other unopened items of mail as at mid-February—have also all now been opened and acknowledged.
There are at the moment 20,000 unopened items of mail relating to immigration cases. All of these were received in April and will be opened in a matter of days. Mail which contains passports for variations of leave is now being opened and acknowledged within a few days of receipt. I should make it clear that the immigration status of these correspondents remains unchanged in every respect while the cases are being considered. No one becomes an overstayer, no matter how long it takes to resolve his application, if the application to extend the stay is made while he has current leave to be here. In those cases the existing leave is automatically extended until 28 days after a decision is taken on the application. So no one will become an overstayer and break the law accidentally.
The question—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is most kind of the noble Earl to give way. How does the department know that people have made applications and are not overstayers if their applications have not been opened?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have spent the last few minutes trying to explain that the applications have been opened. However, there was a concern that they might have been overstayers. I am telling the noble Lord that they are not overstayers under those circumstances.
The question to which noble Lords seek an answer is this. How did the immigration and nationality department get into a situation where it had 207,000 unopened letters in mid-February? The starting point is the British Nationality Act 1981 to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly referred. Under that Act Parliament decided that Commonwealth and Irish citizens who had been living here since 1973 should be entitled to register as British citizens up to the end of last year. Thereafter they would lose that entitlement.
Registration is a means of acquiring British citizenship. It does not bring any fresh advantages in terms of right of abode, of social security benefits or of voting. Nor are people prevented from becoming British citizens. Thereafter they can still apply for naturalisation if they have not applied to register as a British citizen.
Since the British Nationality Act came into force, there has been a steady flow of applications for registration. We launched a publicity campaign in the middle of 1986 in order specifically to remind people of their entitlement and of the closing date for their applications. That campaign continued in 1987. We had envisaged this time last year that there would be 90,000 applications for British citizenship in the financial year 1987–88. The majority would be likely to arrive before the end of December, when the eligibility for these groups ceased.
I should remind your Lordships that the deadline for registration as British citizens was announced in 1982. It was extensively publicised. Very many people, nevertheless, left their applications until the last few weeks of 1987. We expected 90,000 in the whole year and in fact received 300,000. We received 100,000 applications in December alone—and that of course included the build up and the aftermath of Christmas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, blamed us for being wrong in our estimate of 90,000. He is entitled to that view. With hindsight the estimate was clearly wrong. We were partly a victim of our own publicity. This resulted in a large number of naturalisation applications coming from people who did not in fact need to apply but who felt prompted to do so by the advertisements.
Naturalisation applications are normally around 35,000 per year. Last year the figure went from 35,000 to 113,000. This huge rise was completely unexpected, and it added enormously to the workload of Lunar House. The mistaken estimate was also partly due to the actual difficulty of estimating what percentage of people who could apply would apply. It has to be a reasoned guess. We
364
estimated that about 50 per cent. of those who were eligible to apply would do so. We may have assumed too readily that people who had lived here for 15 years or more and who had not exercised their right to become British citizens would not now, at the last minute, choose to do so. We were wrong. We knew that there would be an increase in applications last year, and plans were made to deal with the 90,000 which we had estimated. But those plans proved to be inadequate to deal with the actual number of applications which were in the event received.
While it is easy to blame the Government for not having provided enough staff to deal with the work, we could easily have been blamed with equal or possibly greater force if we had overreacted and had diverted additional staff in the expectation of more applications than had in fact materialised. Once the full extent of the influx of applications was known—and I repeat 100,000 arrived in December alone—we realised that we had to cope vigorously and quickly. Lunar House was becoming snowed up.
Our first step was to divert about 160 staff from a significant element of their normal duties and to use extensive overtime in order to do the basic work of processing the envelopes, cashing the cheques, acknowledging the applications, and returning the passports where they have been sent in. This has now been done. The scrutiny of the applications and the completion of registration have to be done at the same time as the existing work in the nationality division of the Home Office. This takes on average about 18 months.
In the case of the backlog of registration applications which were received before the December deadline, our aim is to complete all these registrations in the next two years. The majority will be completed well before then. The immigration status of the applicant is unchanged in any respect regardless of the outcome of his or her application. The resources are there to do this without detriment to the other work in the immigration and nationality department. For the immigration and nationality department as a whole the 1988–89 budget provided for an extra 100-plus staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. Since the backlog has developed we have decided to divert other Home Office funds so that we can provide at least another 100 extra staff—and possibly more.
The problem does not end as simply as that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched upon this. There is a recruitment problem in Croydon. Relative pay rates will always be a major difficulty, but we have new ideas for local recruitment which might ease the problem. There are also accommodation problems in Croydon. Lunar House just is not big enough to absorb all the additional staff in the numbers which are required.
For all these reasons it is likely to make sense to try to carry out some of the work of processing applications for registration outside London—preferably in a region where there is high unemployment. There are already Home Office offices in Merseyside—for example, at Bootle—and we are considering with a degree of urgency how we might expand them to handle this work. We shall have to see whether it will prove possible to use our

365
existing centres of staff, together with the new staff, to deal with the backlog. The recent computerisation of our nationality work facilitates the use of provincial locations in a way which would have been quite impossible a few years ago. Officials from the immigration and nationality department are in discussion with the Property Services Agency—indeed they are in Liverpool today—in order to discuss accommodation. A further announcement will be made as soon as an office has been located.
The problem has not been easy to deal with. The workload has been enormous—way above anything which was anticipated. I realise that many people have been inconvenienced, and to them I apologise. I am also grateful to the staff at Lunar House for the way in which they have coped with an almost superhuman problem. I cannot pretend that the difficulties are over. What I contend is that we are doing everything we reasonably can to overcome these within the constraints of the staff and accommodation which exist.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept, certainly from me, that if the Home Office ever has to make an excuse and to apologise it could not have a more acceptable representative to make the apology? Having said that, does he realise that firm warnings were given by the Civil Service union of what was likely to occur by way of this backlog? No steps were taken until the deluge occurred. Does the noble Earl also realise that the Home Office has presented an unacceptable face of inefficiency and inhumanity as a result?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure whether that was an intervention or almost another speech. The noble Lord kindly prefaced his words with "Before the Minister sits down", by which time I had already sat down. As soon as the noble Lord came out with those mellifluous phrases, for which I am deeply appreciative, I knew there would be a sting in the tail. That is the noble Lord's custom.
I do not accept all that the noble Lord has said. We are not wholly irresponsible in the Home Office. Officials take great pride in what is done there and obviously they try to make a reasonable assessment. Nobody could know, not even the unions to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, what the final result would be. Nobody could know that 100,000 letters would appear in the last weeks of December. I do not accept the stricture which the noble Lord, in his usual courteous way, put to me. We are aware of the problem and we are doing the best we can.

Licensing Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with an amendment.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.