Lords Sitting of 13 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Jeffreys Lord Jeffreys —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

Telecommunications: US and EC Market Access
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that British companies are offered equal access to United States and EC telecommunication service markets commensurate with the unrestricted access to the British domestic long-distance and international telecommunication markets proposed in the consultative document presented by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry onl3th November.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government take every opportunity to impress on the other member states of the European Community and on the United States the desirability of removing regulatory barriers to the development of competition in telecommunications.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that short but informative reply. Is he aware that under the United States Federal Communications Act 1934 British companies are limited to 20 per cent. ownership of United States companies operating the radio spectrum? Is he further aware that the US authorities have sought exemption from most favoured nation provisions for telecommunications in agreements under GATT in order to support the overseas operations of US companies? Why do not Her Majesty's Government similarly support the entry of British companies into the telecommunications markets of the US and the EC?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the United States 1934 communications Act. I can assure my noble friend that we continue to press our concern on this matter at every opportunity available to us. With regard to most favoured nation treatment, again the
574
Government have in Brussels, particularly during the last week of the GATT round, pushed our unhappiness with the proposals in regard to derogation to which the United States refers. We constantly refer to the bilateral basis.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while our American friends are understandably active in seeking concessions to assist their companies, they are very much less forthcoming in the other direction. Can we not obtain a little more reciprocity in the general trade picture?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is fair to say too that by leading the way in the liberalisation of telecommunications policy we can also show some results. It is worth recording that we have the highest value added content of about £700 million per annum, and climbing, of any European country; it is over twice that of any other European country. It is significant that IBM is moving its world communications centre from New York to London, partly on the basis of the liberal regime that exists in this country.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that the Government are taking every opportunity available to them to deal with the matter. In view of its great importance to this country, can he be more precise about when the next opportunity will be available to the Government to press forward in this respect?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, further discussions on the GATT round will be taking place at the beginning of January. This is an on-going situation—to use an appallingly hackneyed phrase. I believe that a combination of government pressure and a liberalised regime which is paying dividends will benefit this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House as a matter of information whether the Secretary of State has granted any licences to companies in foreign ownership to operate in our domestic telecommunications market? If so, which companies are they and under what ownership?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question is somewhat wide in its specific nature of the Question on the Order Paper; otherwise I would be more than happy to answer it. However, I can assure the noble Lord that having privatised British Telecom we do not wish to see nationalisation by the back door occurring by single-owned nationalised companies coming into this country.
Lord Morris: My Lords, looking at this problem from the other end of the telescope, so to speak, is my noble friend aware that the vast majority of holdings in the cable companies in the United Kingdom are by United States companies and not British companies? Will he assure the House that that is an example of the desirability of reciprocity with the United States?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, cable companies do not fall within the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, the Government rightly reject unilateral disarmament in defence matters, so why are they so enthusiastic about unilateral disarmament in trade matters?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that a free market is a unilaterally more successful way of conducting business.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I press the noble Lord on my question, which refers directly to the Question on the Order Paper. Do the Government support unrestricted access to the British telecommunications market? In what form has that access been granted and to whom?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government will pay close attention to the degree of state ownership when considering the granting of a licence. Privatisation has been successful and we do not wish to encourage nationalisation by the back door.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Benches behind him are almost empty? Is that a mass desertion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that I did not entirely get the point of the noble Lord's question, due to my own fallibility.

European Consumer Affairs Council
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What items were discussed at the European Community Council of Ministers' meeting on consumer affairs on 7th December 1990, and what progress was made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the European Council of Ministers' meeting on consumer affairs which had been scheduled for 7th December 1990 was cancelled by the Italian presidency.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the cancellation was due to inadequate preparatory work on the draft directive on product safety? If so, is he aware that the Council of Ministers has already discussed the draft directive four times? If the cancellation was not due to inadequate preparatory work can he tell the House what was the cause?
Can the Minister further say whether he and his fellow Ministers accept the incessant delay which goes on and on? Do they ever protest? Can we be told the date of the next meeting?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there were several meetings of officials concerned with the general product safety directive during the period just before 7th December. The directive was to be the main item on the agenda. However, the Italians clearly felt that not enough progress had been made to justify a further discussion in council.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I was about to say that the Minister has not answered half of my questions, but that might put me in the wrong. Can the Minister say whether he and his fellow Ministers ever protest at this incessant delay which goes on and on? Can he tell us the date when these matters will be discussed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the decision was made by the Italian presidency. It was its decision to make. The next presidency will be held by Luxembourg. It has to say whether this item will be included on the agenda.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the provisions of Article 39(1) (e) of the Treaty of Rome, can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the Council of Ministers dealing with consumer affairs next meets it will deal with the question —as required by treaty—of the prices paid by the consumer for agricultural products? Has the British Minister dealing with consumer affairs had the opportunity of reading the report of the National Consumer Council of the United Kingdom? The report was prepared under the distinguished chairmanship of the Minister's noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes: it deals with food prices and the common agricultural policy.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a treat to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, holding a copy of the treaty in his hand. Although I read the report to which the noble Lord referred in my previous incarnation as the Minister for consumer affairs, his point is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, has the Minister received representations about the draft directive on product safety from the consumer organisations? If so, can he say whether their representations will form part of government policy? If that is not the case, can the Minister say why?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in my previous role I received representations from those with interests in consumer affairs and in the European dimension. The problems concerning the negotiations involve matters that go beyond the question of whether subsidiarity is part of the difficulties which we face.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, some of the documents and data referred to by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are at the heart of the issue of consumer affairs. In those circumstances can the noble Lord say why he considers them to be somewhat wide of a Question which deals wholly with consumer affairs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Question refers specifically to the general product safety directive which is entirely different to the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, am I correct in assuming that if the Minister had protested at the delay he would have been only too pleased to have told the House? Will the Minister inform the House whether our own Ministers have ever protested at the delay? Is it their intention to do anything about it or simply to sit there and do nothing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the cancellation was a unilateral decision taken by the Italian presidency. That decision was taken before there was any possibility of our protesting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he was not entirely correct in saying that the Question did not deal specifically with consumer affairs and that it was restricted to the

577
matters raised by the noble Baroness? Does he not agree that the Question deals with consumer affairs generally and that I was quite in order to put the question that I did?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this is one of the very rare occasions when I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

Air Navigation Regulations
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whaddon Lord Whaddon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the regulations governing air navigation currently in force.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the regulations governing air navigation are reviewed from time to time. The last review resulted in the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 1990 the provisions of which began to come into force on 1st December. The amendments are matters of technical and legal detail and do not include any changes of policy except that private aircraft must now comply with regulations governing taking off and landing in had weather.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that pilots are encouraged to make trial approaches and overshoots at airfields from time to time in the interests of flight safety and for the maintenance of skills? Is he further aware that the regulations provide for such specific trial manoeuvres at licensed airfields, but that no such permission is evident in the rules covering unlicensed airfields which are the vast majority? Does the Minister not agree that the interests of flight safety demand that such permission should be allowed at all airfields both licensed and unlicensed? Will he seek to amend the regulations accordingly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the safety of air navigation is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I shall obtain the views of the chairman of that body and write to the noble Lord on the substance of his question. The regulations to which the noble Lord referred do not specifically prohibit practice at approaches to unlicensed aerodromes but specifically permit practice approaches at licensed aerodromes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that these regulations have the approval of the Civil Aviation Authority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, that is correct.

The Classless Society
3.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to bring about the classless society advocated by the Prime Minister.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, The Government will continue with their policies of extending opportunity through increased home and share ownership, the encouragement of wealth creation by low taxation on families and business and reforms in education so that men and women may go as far as their talents, ambitions and effort can take them without artificial barriers of background, religion, or race.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I welcome him in answering his first Question at the Dispatch Box. Does the noble Lord regard the constitution of this House as part of the classless society or has he any proposals for reform?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think that it would be wise for me at this first Question Time to attack hereditary honours. I note that many noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who claim to support the classless society have hereditary titles themselves. What matters is not the titles that people hold but whether those with talent and ambition have the opportunity to use their talents to the full.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as a contribution towards the classless society and as one of his first tasks, will the noble Lord examine the possibility of doing something about the very classified nature of this House?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is far too great a matter for me to deal with today. No doubt it will be the subject of debate on many occasions, but I do not think that this is the time for me to launch into the intricacies of the British constitution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that we can have a classless society which includes a very large number of unemployed people? As the figures released today show that the increase in the number of the unemployed—which is part of government policy—is now moving towards 2 million, is that factor included in the Government's proposals for producing the classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is right to point out that the number of long-term unemployed has actually fallen again and that more people are in work than ever before. The truth of the matter is that the living standards of all sections of society have improved in recent years. I do not understand how it can be suggested that depressing living standards, as happened under Labour, bring one nearer to a classless society. Social spending has increased in real terms by 41 per cent. in the past 11 years; social security spending on families actually went down under the previous Labour Government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on becoming Leader of the House. Many of us consider that a just society is to be preferred to a so-called classless society. In that context, does he not agree that we cannot have a just society when there are far too many people out of work and too many of our fellow citizens are sleeping rough in boxes in the

579
centres of our great cities? That is not a just society; it is certainly not a classless society; it is simply a bad society.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is certainly the case that a slowing down of the economy has occurred after eight years of unprecedented growth—after eight years during which our economy grew very much faster than that of almost any other country in the European Community. Noble Lords will recognise how necessary it is to combat inflation. The slowing down of the economy that has occurred and the regrettable increase in unemployment will have to be endured for the moment in order to squeeze inflation out of the system.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Opposition Benches contain a large number of hereditary Peers. Is he aware that, if all those who are not hereditary Peers were to disappear, looking around me at the moment I think that that would leave just four of us?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was obviously concentrating my mind on the debate which took place yesterday, when one or two hereditary Peers on the Opposition Benches made most interesting contributions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is most simply described as a commitment to a society in which all members of the United Kingdom can make the best use of their talents and that is not obstructed by the institutions which some noble Lords opposite are seeking to denigrate?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred to a classless society, he was referring to a society in which every individual could make the best use of the talents at his disposal. I believe that that day has come very much nearer during the past 11 years.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in regard to every individual making a contribution to society, do the Government's plans for a classless society include the removal of the present inhibition to most women becoming Members of your Lordships' House?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is part of the Government's programme to see that there is real equality of opportunity. Many steps have been taken in recent years to further that aim.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government are adopting a gradual approach to a classless society by creating Baronets instead of Peers?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is a subject on which again I had better not comment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Wales is in fact a classless society? Is he further aware that it is 100 years since Lloyd George entered Parliament and that he, a Welshman, did more than any other politician in this century to move us towards a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think it is right this afternoon for me to express a view on the virtues or lack of virtues of Mr. Lloyd George.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, in view of the fact that nowhere on this earth does a classless society exist, can the noble Lord, without political invective, say in simple terms what in his mind constitutes a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is an open society and a society in which each individual, man or woman, can make the best use of the talents at his or her disposal; and if he or she has the energy and the talents, he or she can rise to the top.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Lord's background in the Home Office and also the view that justice is available only to the very rich or the very poor, will the Government now have another look at the legal aid system to ensure that justice is available to all?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is present to hear the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their U-turn in admitting the existence of society, which was repudiated by the right honourable lady the Member for Finchley while she occupied such a distinguished office. Will the noble Lord explain how he proposes to incorporate within his new society the 4 million children who according to the latest UNICEF report are living under conditions of poverty, a number double what it was 10 years ago?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has advanced a most extraordinary proposition. When one looks back at 1979–80 and remembers the legislation then introduced to give people the opportunities which they never had before to buy their council houses, when one looks at all the opportunities which have been given over recent years for people to acquire shares, not only shares in any company but in the companies for which they work, and when one considers the opportunities available now for people to pass on wealth to their children, there are now opportunities such as people 11 years ago never dreamt of.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord asserted that the standard of living of all the people of this country had risen over the past 10 years. Is he aware that the bottom 10 per cent. of our population have seen their standard of living rise by about 10 per cent., whereas the top 10 per cent. have seen their standard of living rise by more than 70 per cent.? Is that what he and his right honourable friend consider to be progress towards a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can only assume from the noble Lord's question that he would be far happier if there had been no increase in living standards for any of the classes in society so that all of them would have had the lower standards of living which they had under the last Labour Government.

Ade1phi Estate Bill
3.28 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House: Debate, 16th January
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Ezra set down for 16th January shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—[Lord Waddington.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Namibia Bill [H.L.]
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p. m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lards, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Maintenance orders in the High Court and county courts: means of payment, attachment of earnings and revocation, variation, etc.]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("either of its powers") and insert ("its power").
The noble Lord said: When I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading I ended my remarks by saying that we on this side of the Chamber hoped that we could give the Bill a calm sea and a following wind. I see that the following wind has now driven out all those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who wish at this point to leave the Chamber to go elsewhere and do something else.
In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17. The first two are small amendments and the centre of the group is Amendment No. 3. The effect of that amendment would be to delete all reference in the Bill to the High Court or the county court being able to order that a debtor should make payments under a maintenance order by standing order or by direct debit. The subsection giving the court power to order a debtor to open a bank account would also be deleted.
We do not believe that the imposition of standing orders or direct debits will improve the enforcement of maintenance orders. We say that for two reasons. First, both the debtor and the creditor will need to have bank accounts. That may prove difficult, and a power to force the debtor to open a bank account, as contained in subsection (6), may provoke hostility and have considerable implications as regards civil liberties. Further, the provision is an extremely unusual one and is not present in any similar legislation.
Secondly, banks now consider it desirable practice to credit score someone before accepting an application to open an account. That means that the bank obtains some basic information on whether or not the individual concerned would be a suitable person to hold an account. Clearly, if credit scoring is carried out it may have the effect of making it difficult for some individuals to open bank accounts. In saying that, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on Second Reading on 29th November (col. 1083 of Hansard). The banks' unwillingness to accept certain customers will be increased if there is a probability that the bank charges will accrue and will not be met.
Even if both parties open bank accounts, that will not necessarily lead to the payment of maintenance orders. To operate a standing order it is necessary to place funds in an account. The easiest way for a debtor to avoid payment of an order, despite having opened a bank account, is to ensure—by neglect, of course —that no funds go into his account. The provisions of the Bill do nothing to tackle the problem. It is our feeling that banks are unlikely to want to take on customers who really do not wish to be customers. It seems to us that that does not get the relationship off to a good start. We therefore submit that those provisions would cause more trouble than they are worth and ought therefore to be deleted from the Bill.
An alternative to that method of collection would be to include a provision specifying that maintenance payments can be collected by the Inland Revenue. That seems to us to be much simpler and more preferable. We may possibly put forward an amendment to that effect at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the banks have been consulted? Further, if they have, can he say what they have said on the matter and whether they are willing to accept this ruling in the Bill?
Earl Ferrets: I understand the point which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is trying to make. I think that we should first look at the principle behind the Bill. Its principal objective is to ensure that maintenance payments are made regularly. That is the raison d'être of the Bill. As Members of the Committee will appreciate, regularity of payment can be as important as the amount of maintenance ordered. Regular maintenance payments reduce the need for lone parents to rely on income support and for valuable court resources to be used for enforcement proceedings.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would prevent the courts having the power to order a maintenance debtor to make his payments by standing order or by a similar method direct to the maintenance creditor. I explained on Second Reading why we considered it so important, from the point of view of ensuring regularity of payment, that the courts should be given the standing order power. Under a standing order arrangement, the maintenance creditor does not have to rely on the debtor taking a positive step on each occasion when payment is due. It will come in automatically unless some positive action is taken to interrupt it. The debtor may not be well motivated to make regular payments. The power to order payment by standing order may be especially relevant where, for example, a person is self-employed, so that the possibility of an attachment of earnings order does not arise.
I ask the noble Lord to remember that this Bill does not concentrate solely on one method of payment; it contains four methods. There is no requirement that the court must consider one of those methods of payment—in this case a standing order or, alternatively, an attachment of earnings order—before any of the others. All the methods of payment are equally available. The court is also obliged, before specifying the method of payment, to have regard to any representations made by those concerned. In other words, if the creditor does not have a bank account, or the debtor does not have a bank account, or even if the creditor does not want payment made in that way, he or she may so inform the court.
It is important that we do not shy away from improving the mechanics of collection of maintenance. Payment by standing order will ensure that the careless maintenance debtor does not become the habitual object of enforcement proceedings. His maintenance payments will be paid with the same regularity as his other standing orders.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the banks had been specifically consulted on the matter. I am afraid that I cannot give her the answer to that question. I shall endeavour to find out the position, though I believe that it is relatively an irrelevance. If the creditor and the debtor have a bank account and if the court orders that the standing order system should be used, I do not see that the bank concerned should have any cause to complain about the procedure any more than it would in respect of any other standing order which it might be obliged to pay.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for that reply, which has all the virtues of succinctness. The points he made are ones with which I am not totally happy. I should like especially to ask him to consider the famous phrase of the philosopher Occam:
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccesitas",
which could be translated into, "You don't need to have more golf clubs in your bag than you are ever likely to use". I believe that a much simpler method of effecting the end which the Bill seeks to achieve would be to consider collection by the Inland Revenue, which has the merit of great simplicity. I think that we shall probably return to the matter at a later stage in an effort to try to convince the noble Earl of the virtues of that method.
Earl Ferrers: Just before the noble Lord concludes, perhaps I may take the opportunity to enlighten my noble friend as regards the question she asked. By some miraculous method I have now found the answer, which I had momentarily forgotten. I said that I did not believe the banks had been consulted on the use of standing orders for the purposes of the Bill. However, it appears that they have. They expressed some reservations about the proposed power of compulsion to open a bank account. But it was explained to them that that would be a power of last resort. That is the position.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for that reply.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the procedure. Obviously if the person against whom the order is made is prepared to pay, the standing order process is a good method. However, if he is not prepared to pay it is quite clear that he could remove funds from the account from which the standing order should be made and therefore it would not be paid. I am not clear as to what would happen in such a situation.
Earl Ferrers: The court has four methods by which it can direct payments to be made: directly to the creditor, payment to the court, payment by standing order or similar procedure, or by an attachment of earnings order. If, in its wisdom, the court orders a debtor to pay by standing order and the debtor has no bank account, the court will first say, "We think that you should have a bank account. Will you go and open one?" The court will then adjourn the proceedings for 14 days, or whatever the period may be, until the account is opened. The proceedings will then be reopened. The debtor will say, "I have opened an account", and the standing order will then be made by the court. I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is asking what will happen if two months later the gentleman decides to rescind the standing order.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, not to rescind the standing order, but to remove his money from the account.
Earl Ferrers: If he removes his money from the account and does not comply with the order, he will return to the court because he will be in breach of the order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

585
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("case") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for not being present on Second Reading to give a forecast of what I might be talking about. I had duties in the Isle of Wight which took me away at that time. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 12, which has the same effect in relation to magistrates' courts as Amendment No. 4 has in relation to the higher courts. Both amendments seek to remove the introduction of compulsory attachment of earnings.
As the Committee will be aware, I am advised on this type of matter by the CBI. In a sort of—I hate to say it—underhand way different departments of state are inviting businesses to act as agents for central government in a variety of ways. Only the day before yesterday, I was pleading that the system of statutory sickness pay should not be changed in the way proposed by the Government. I pointed out that in administering statutory sickness pay businesses have an administrative obligation for which the Government do not pay them. It adds to their work, and in a way reduces the efficiency of companies which need to be wholly efficient in the modern world to provide, the wealth necessary to keep the state going. The principle is being introduced more and more.
At the moment the CBI is in discussion with the Department of the Environment about the introduction of attachment of earnings orders for the community charge. That has been and gone, but it happened. Good progress is being made in ensuring that the administrative procedures are as simple and certain as possible and impose the minimum amount of extra work upon the employer. We now have a further requirement. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made clear why we want a system of maintenance enforcement and why an attachment of earnings order is an attractive way of enforcing maintenance. However, as my noble friend said, as reported at col. 1073 of the Official Report for 29th November, attachment of earnings orders can be used now, but only by consent of the debtor.
That was good for the courts. They were therefore not liable to be called aggressive and authoritarian bodies, forcing people to do things that had hitherto been done by consent. What is more important—apart from the extra work that companies will have to undertake—companies are worried that taking on those extra obligations on behalf of the state will cause them industrial relations problems. Individuals who until now have seen such requirements imposed by consent only will say, "Why is my company taking this money to pay this woman whom I left?" One can imagine all sorts of circumstances in which a man may feel aggrieved. I feel strongly that children should not suffer, but the woman involved may have behaved atrociously. Why should a man's company take away from him the money that he has earned?
There is a great deal of anxiety about this issue. In the climate of this legislation, it is difficult to see a
586
compromise. It would be nice if the Government were to say that although they are giving themselves the power to do so they will not introduce the orders until they are proved to be necessary and will try all the other methods first. One possibility is that my noble friend will give an undertaking along those lines. Another possibility is that he may say that if they want to make an order under the subsections that I seek to remove they will consult the CBI before proceeding, in the same way as the Department of the Environment is consulting the CBI about the details of attachment of earnings orders in relation to the community charge. Those are possibilities, but it would be much better at this stage if we did not go down that route and left attachment of earnings as a voluntary matter, for the sake of the magistrates' courts and the companies.
We should bear in mind that the country is in a difficult financial position. We do not want to impoverish our companies further by industrial relations disputes, and so it might be better to accept the amendments at this stage and return to the issue at a later date when the country is more prosperous and may be better able to afford it. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On Tuesday we heard a most effective speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. He protested vigorously at the administrative burdens being placed on employers. There have been a number of such burdens. He is justified in drawing attention to them. For a long time we have had the Customs and Excise. We now have VAT, which imposes a considerable burden upon all except small retailers. We have the Inland Revenue PAYE scheme, which has been generally beneficial and welcomed. We also have the proposals to which the noble Lord referred —that sick pay should be administered, and funded partially, by the employer. Now he addresses himself to the attachment of earnings. I am afraid that I cannot go along with him on that at all. In my experience, attachment of earnings is by far the best way of enforcing maintenance arrears and keeping the maintenance defaulter out of prison.
This is not a new proposal. Attachment of earnings for this purpose was introduced under a Conservative Government by a predecessor in the office of the noble Earl in the 1950s. Initially when it was introduced it was proposed by a private Member and it ran into difficulty with trade unionists. When it was taken up as a government measure it was welcomed by the official Opposition, led on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Robens. At that time there was no thought of demur at all from employers. So far as I know, there has been no difficulty since then.
Obviously the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the matter must be regarded in its wider context. Nevertheless, if attachment of earnings as an administrative burden on employers is justified, it is certainly justified here. Not only is it not new but it is justified by the very nature of the nuclear family, which is based, among other things, on the co-operative division of labour between men and

587
women. It is women who bear and suckle children. They generally have the main burden of bringing up young children. That frees the man, the husband, for his economic advancement to earn emoluments in the labour market. When the employer pays the man his wage or salary he pays the wage earner who is enabled to earn by virtue of the wife's self-abnegation. She is fully entitled to share in those emoluments, and that is the view of the employers. That is the ultimate reason.
However, there is another reason. This is by far the best way of keeping the habitual maintenance defaulter out of prison. It would be a matter very much within the knowledge of the noble Earl, with his cognisance of prisons, as well as the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. In my experience, no section of the prison population is more hopeless or more discouraging than the maintenance defaulter. He is sent to prison because there is no other way of dealing with him.
However, now the Government have several other ways, of which this is much the most effective. If we wish to clear these inadequate psychopaths—as they mostly are—out of prison, this is by far the best way of doing it. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, as I should in any case find myself compelled to resist it.
Baroness Faithfull: I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord. I am in some difficulty because in my experience in a proportion of cases, although not all, if an attachment of earnings order is made, often the man will move his employment. I should be grateful for an explanation of what happens when a man continually moves his employment and therefore the attachment of earnings order falls.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches are perhaps more attached to collection by attachment of earnings orders than Members on Benches opposite. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I have some sympathy with the difficulties that he described which are faced by British industry. It does not like collecting these moneys. However, do not those difficulties underline the case that I have just made in proposing payment via the Inland Revenue? It could be done much more simply by altering the coding.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for having put down the amendment so that we can discuss the problem. If it achieved one object, it was to evoke the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in which he depicted so graphically and accurately the relationship between the wife who looks after the child and her husband who goes out to work to earn the money.
There are occasions where attachment of earnings orders are a justified way of enabling the wife to have part of the money which her husband has earned so that she can look after the child. I accept that employers do not like having to undertake what we might call tax deductions or rather deductions on behalf of the Government. The noble and learned
588
Lord referred to VAT and PAYE as well as sick pay benefits. These are all what one might call irritants to employers who do not wish to have to carry out the task. However, there are occasions when they have to.
My noble friend made a reasoned speech, but he went slightly over the top, if I may say so, when he said that he did not wish to see companies impoverished by industrial relations disputes over attachment of earnings orders. I do not believe that that would be likely. He suggested that we ought to introduce them when the country could afford them. With great respect to my noble friend, that is not a relevant argument because I do not believe that the success of the country will depend on the few companies that have to make deductions under attachment of earnings orders.
The trouble is that the amendment would remove the power given in the Bill which allows the courts to make an attachment of earnings order when making a maintenance order. My noble friend was right to remind us that at present courts can only require a debtor to pay an attachment of earnings order at the time of making a maintenance order provided that he consents. The fact is that few debtors do consent. In 1989 less than 10 per cent. agreed to an attachment of earnings order being made.
Everyone is aware of the distress and anxiety caused to those who are dependent on maintenance payments when those payments do not materialise. As the noble and learned Lord said, the attachment of earnings order is a good way of achieving the aim but it is not foolproof. It ought to ensure regularity of payment in normal circumstances. The debtor who is forgetful or careless in making his maintenance payments or who seeks to play the maintenance system does not when an attachment of earnings order is in existence receive the opportunity to avoid his payments.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked what happened if the fellow then left his job and went to another one. The employer has a duty under the 1971 Act to inform the court that the person has left. The employee also has a duty to inform the court that he has left. It is possible that people do not do so, in which case the man concerned will be caught for being in arrears again.
An attachment of earnings order is an efficient and effective enforcement tool. Its use should not be dependent either on the debtor's consent or the debtor's default. We must remember that this is not the only method of payment. The courts have four alternatives at their disposal. The attachment of earnings orders should be available whenever a court judges that they would be the most preferred method of payment and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case before it. The Bill does not require an attachment of earnings order to be made in every case where the debtor is in employment. It is only one of the available options open to the court. The court will select the best option in the circumstances.
I appreciate the concern of employers that an increase in the number of attachment of earnings

589
orders may place unreasonable administrative burdens on them. My noble friend mentioned that useful discussions had taken place with employers about possible ways of streamlining the administrative arrangements for the discharge of attachment orders in the context of community charge enforcement. I am happy to give my noble friend the assurance that we shall undertake similar consultation in the maintenance context before this Bill is brought into force. I can also confirm that active consideration is being given to an increase in the administrative charge which employers are entitled to deduct when operating an attachment order—I know my noble friend will welcome Tie that—bearing in mind that the present charge of 50p has remained unchanged for several years.
My noble friend remarked that some people may question the fact that the company they work for is taking away money which they have earned and paying it to their wives when they do not wish their wives to have that money. Nevertheless, there is a simple answer to that question, as the employees concerned will realise. The money is taken away because the court has decreed that that is what should happen.
4 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend and others who have spoken, even if they have not all spoken in favour of my amendment. Nevertheless, the discussion has widened the argument. I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving an undertaking that his department will consult the CBI before the Bill and any orders that come from it are brought into effect. I am grateful to him for saying that consideration is being given to increasing the administrative charge which employers are entitled to deduct when operating an attachment order as the present amount is ridiculously small. I did not think it was worth even mentioning the present small amount. In the circumstances, I believe we have gone as far as we can on this matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert:
"(b) the debtor, within a period of fourteen days immediately following the hearing, has not taken the opportunity of opening an account from which payments under the order may be made in accordance with the method of payment proposed to be ordered under that paragraph and the court is satisfied that the debtor has failed, without reasonable excuse, to open such an account,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14, which is the mirror image of Amendment No. 5. The amendment is intended to be helpful in giving a closer definition to the word "opportunity" in Clause 1(6). Under Clause 1 the High Court or the county courts can make a method of payment order. If the court decides that payment of a maintenance order should be made by standing order or direct debit, it will be necessary for the debtor to have a bank account.
590
Clause 1(6) provides that if the debtor does not have a bank account the court should give him an opportunity to open one. If the debtor refuses to take up this opportunity, the court can then order him to open an account.
The amendment will mean that if a debtor has not opened a bank account within 14 days of the hearing he will be deemed not to have taken advantage of the opportunity to do so. The court will then be able to proceed to make an order that a debtor should open a bank account with the minimum of delay. By defining the word "opportunity" the amendment should remove any possible arguments over what period of time constitutes a reasonable opportunity. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have considerable sympathy with the approach which the noble Lord has taken in these amendments. However, I am bound to tell him that believe the provisions of Amendment No. 5 would impose an unnecessary and possibly undesirable timetable on the exercise of the courts' discretion.
We are proposing that a court should be able to order a maintenance debtor to open an account from which standing order payments may be made unless it is satisfied that he has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so. It is common ground that the debtor must be given a reasonable opportunity to try to open an account, so that if he fails to do so the court is able to decide whether that is for some good reason outside his control or whether he has simply decided to drag his heels or invent difficulties where none exist. How long a period is needed may vary from case to case, having regard to all the individual circumstances. In some cases the question may be simple. In others it may not be straightforward, for example where a person has been refused facilities by one bank but another bank is willing to open an account subject to various conditions. It is possible that 14 days will not be long enough to provide an adequate safeguard in those circumstances as the effect of the amendment would be to allow a court to make an order at the end of this period.
While we sympathise with the aim of the amendment, we believe that the better course would be not to attempt to fetter the discretion of the court to decide for itself how long to adjourn proceedings in order to allow a debtor to take steps to open an account. One must remember that proceedings have to be adjourned in order for an account to be opened. It is only when an account has been opened that the proceedings can be recommenced to allow the maintenance order or the standing order to be paid. The court will not be able to make an order requiring the debtor to pay the required sums unless it is satisfied that he has failed without reasonable excuse to do so voluntarily. That should be a sufficient safeguard. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that on the whole his amendment would fetter the courts and that it would be better to leave the matter to their judgment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that 14 days is quite a long time. It is surprising what can be done in that space of time. I do not believe that to impose

591
a time limit would fetter the courts unduly. If the limit were effective and enforced, it would make some of these people get a move on. In many cases it is the delay which constitutes the menace to the person looking after the family. These proceedings can be dragged out in so many ways by so many procedures. I believe that a 14 day limit could help to concentrate the mind of those who might otherwise be inclined to increase delay by every possible means. However, I have heard what the Minister said and I shall carefully read his remarks tomorrow. We may come back to the matter at a later stage; in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("(6A) In deciding in the case of a maintenance order, which of the powers under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) above, it is to exercise the court shall have regard to any representations made—

(i) by the debtor,

(ii) by the creditor, and

(iii) if the applicant for the qualifying periodical maintenance order is a person other than the creditor, by that other person.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is an attempt to add what I might describe as a helpful touch of consistency to the Bill. It will ensure that the provisions of Clause 1 relating to the High Court and the county courts are similar to those relating to the magistrates' courts contained in Clause 2.
Under Clause 2 a magistrates' court will have the same powers as the High Court and county courts to decide what method of payment should be used for a maintenance order. When the magistrates' court decides which of the powers to exercise—that is, the method of payment it will require —Clause 2(5) will require the court to take account of the comments of the debtor and/or the creditor on any possible methods of payment. The amendment seeks to ensure that when a High Court or a county court decides whether or not to make a method of payment order, they, too, will have to take account of the comments of the debtor or the creditor on any possible methods of payment. What goes for the goose should properly go for the gander. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I do not think magistrates would like to be described as geese.
Earl Ferrers: I liked the suggestion of the noble Lord that he was trying to be helpful in seeking to add a touch of consistency to the Bill. I believe his amendment virtually repeats the provision in Clause 1(8) which requires the court, in deciding whether to exercise any of its powers to order the method of payment either by standing order or by attachment of earnings, to,
"have regard to any representations made by any interested party".
That covers a decision to exercise either of the powers in Clause 1(4).
592
If the noble Lord's intention is to replace subsection (8) then in our view the amendment is too narrow in that it does not give a right to make representations in respect of proposed orders under subsection (6), which deals with opening a bank account, or subsection (7), which concerns revoking, reviving, varying or suspending means of payment orders.
I suggest that the amendment could also be undesirable in that its drafting may suggest that the High Court or county court will in every case exercise its powers over the method of payment. The High Court and county court may not do so in every case, as they have discretion whether to exercise that power, in contrast with the magistrates' court, which has a mandatory obligation to specify a method of payment.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that what is set out in the Bill is better than what he has proposed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am not entirely convinced by that explanation. I should welcome further time to consider how the points made by the noble Earl would impinge on the other clauses of the Bill. While reserving the right to come back to the matter at a later stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 48, after ("shall") insert ("having given notice of any such application to all interested parties").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 8 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 15. The phrase "having given notice" is at the centre of the matter.
The amendment would mean that when a debtor or creditor applies to the High Court or county court for a method of payment order to be changed, the court will have a duty to notify the other party of the application. We are concerned with the matter of notification to applicants because, while it is a general truth that justice must be seen to be done, we believe that it should be seen to be done by all of those to whom it is done.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill the court has discretion to make or change a method of payment order. The court can do so when the order is made or at a later date. The court has the right to exercise that power in two ways. It can do so either while other proceedings concerning the order are being heard by the court or if the debtor or creditor makes an application. The amendment will ensure that the court has a duty to notify the debtor or creditor of any application so that he or she will have the opportunity to make whatever comments seem fit. It would also bring the procedure in the High Court or county court into line with that set out in Clause 4 concerning the magistrates' court —another pleasing touch of consistency, if the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the amendment, with which I

593
have considerable sympathy. The requirement that the court must have regard to any representations made by the debtor, the creditor and the applicant, if different from the creditor, was included in the Bill as an obvious safeguard in order to ensure that the court specified the most appropriate method of payment in the circumstances of any particular case. Clearly the safeguard is worthless if one or more of the interested parties is not aware of what is going on.
Let us consider each of the parties in turn. The applicant would be aware of the proceedings, for obvious reasons—he or she (usually she) wants the money. The debtor will also be aware of the proceedings since they will arise only in connection with an application for him to pay maintenance. In the great majority of cases the applicant and the creditor will be the same person. However, I accept that there may be exceptional cases in which they could be different. One could take the example of an application for maintenance of the child being made by the mother, with a request that the funds are paid, for example, into the account of the grandmother who is looking after the child. The grandmother might not approve of that method of payment and obviously her views should be made known to the court. It is possible that there may be simpler ways of ensuring that interested parties, such as the grandmother, are given notice of the proceedings than the method suggested in the noble Lord's amendment.
I should like to give further consideration to this matter. It is important and I should like to consider how best to deal with it. It is possible that an amendment to the Bill may be required, but it may also le possible, and perhaps more satisfactory, to deal with the point through the rules of the court. If the noble Lord would be good enough to let me consider the matter I should be grateful.
Lard Morris of Castle Morris: I am delighted that the noble Earl has seen the matter in that way. I am grateful to him for what he has said. In the light of his assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 14, after ("where") insert ("the person who was").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 9 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 16. They are both drafting amendments designed to make the particular provisions a little clearer. In both cases we a -e trying to differentiate between the person who is the applicant and the person who is the creditor. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My only objection to the amendment is that it is unnecessary. Since it is unnecessary to add those words to an already lengthy Bill they should not be added. The Bill is perfectly clear as it is. Indeed, the terminology is reflected in the third line of Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
I cannot see that either in logic or grammar the words add anything at all. Obviously it is not a matter
594
to be challenged to a Division, but I ask the noble Earl not to press the amendment today. There will be plenty of opportunities to add such an amendment if necessary. Perhaps he will discuss the matter with the draftsman before the next stage.
Earl Ferrers: I was dreading such an observation from the noble and learned Lord, whose knowledge of the law is so great. When he says that to include the words "the person who was" is unnecessary I am bound to defer to a substantial degree to his legal knowledge. I would only pit against his observation the point that, while he suggested that. I should get in touch with parliamentary counsel, it was parliamentary counsel who suggested the wording. I would not have been so impertinent as to put in such words myself on such a legal matter without the advice of parliamentary counsel. It is the view of parliamentary counsel that the words are necessary.
I should like to suggest that, in view of the high standing in which the parliamentary draftsman is always held in your Lordships' House, we accept the amendments and if on reading Hansard the parliamentary draftsman says "My goodness me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made a most impressive speech and I was wrong", I should be quite happy to bring forward an amendment at a later stage. However, I do not believe that he will say that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The parliamentary draftsman may well be prepared to reconsider the matter in view of what has been said. I would not press the noble Earl unless it seemed to me absolutely clear that the words add nothing to the Bill as printed. The Bill as printed is lucid, intelligible and beyond any ambiguity. It means exactly what it says. With all respect to the noble Earl and parliamentary counsel, they are frightened of the shadow of words. I ask the noble Earl to reconsider the matter carefully with parliamentary counsel, who is well capable of considering an argument and changing his mind if he thinks it justified.
Earl Ferrers: From behind me I hear the advice of my noble friend Lord Harvington, who says that parliamentary counsel does not often change his mind. I shall consult with the parliamentary draftsman on this matter. I shall not go to the stake for it. If the noble and learned Lord feels that those words are inappropriate and wrong, I shall go back to parliamentary counsel and ask his opinion. If the noble and learned Lord wishes, I shall bring back this matter at Report stage. I should have thought that it would be the Committee's desire to take parliamentary counsel's view but if the noble and learned Lord wishes me to take back this matter, I shall be content to do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At this point I want to revert to a matter that I ventured to raise at Second Reading; namely, the question of family courts. I think that there was some misunderstanding. I could have raised this matter in regard either to Clause 1, which deals with the High Court and the many county courts, or Clause 2, which deals with all the multifarious magistrates' courts as well.
When introducing this Bill so lucidly the noble Earl referred to the proliferation of courts and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the fragmentation of jurisdiction. It seems to me that both those terms are abundantly justified. I ventured to point out that it was a wonderful opportunity to consider a unified system of family courts in place of the present proliferation and fragmentation.
Family courts were suggested originally as long ago as the 1950s. The idea gradually gathered support. An early supporter was Judge Jean Graham-Hall, who was immensely experienced in that jurisdiction. However there then occurred two momentous adhesions. The first was the recommendation of the Finer Committee which set out at considerable length and with great cogency the arguments in favour and unreservedly recommended a system of family courts. The second was consideration of the matter by the Family Committee of the Law Council, which also recommended the system of family courts. That proposal was endorsed by the Council of the Law Society and enthusiastically put forward in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The third important adherent was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with her vast experience. I understand that she is not only unreservedly in favour of what is proposed but leads the campaign in support.
I venture to say that at Second Reading I understood from my noble and learned friend at the stage of consideration of the Commons amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill that he was in favour. I must tell the Committee how that situation arose. The proposal was to identify some special county courts with a specialist jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. That was welcomed on its merits by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord went on to say that he regarded it as an important step toward a system of family courts. I ventured to echo that sentiment and when my noble and learned friend replied I understood him to accept it.
The Committee will remember that when Gladstone was challenged about something which apparently he had said as reported in Hansard and which was inconsistent with his present assertion, he always used to say, "Read on". Sure enough, in the next paragraph one found that he had qualified what he had appeared to say categorically. I was concerned lest I had done my noble and learned friend an injustice. But first I must quote from what the noble Earl said at Second Reading on receiving a brief from the Box. I shall not deal with everything he said but he ended by saying that:
"that does not mean that it will lead to what the noble and learned Lord has described as family courts".—[Official Report, 29/11/90; col. 1090.]
596
I turned back in Hansard to read what my noble and learned friend had in fact said in the context which I described. He said:
"I believe that these are important steps towards a unified family jurisdiction"—
I emphasise the word "jurisdiction"
"which may be the right answer to the attainment of the goals which have sometimes been described under different phrases in the past".—[Official Report, 24/10/90; col. 1359.]
The different phrases in the past were family courts. I did not hear it but I cannot read that other than as accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said.
It seems to me that there is a danger of some backtracking on what my noble and learned friend said and that there may be a different view in the Home Office from that in my noble and learned friend's department. That would be nothing unusual. Departments tend to have different views. However, I am anxious to have what my noble and learned friend said vindicated. I do not mind if the noble Earl puts it in exactly the same words as I have just quoted.
While dealing with family courts perhaps I may mention one other matter. In the 1960s the Home Office published a consultation document proposing family councils—a council of the extended family to deal with juvenile problems. In the atmosphere of the 1960s it was not very well received. As an institution the family was not particularly advocated at that time in some quarters and the matter was dropped. I ask the noble Earl whether he will have that document taken out of its pigeon-hole in his office, have it dusted down and reconsider it in the context of family courts.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing up this matter under this part of the Bill. As he said, I am chairman of the Family Courts Campaign. We welcome the objects of giving priority to the children's welfare if the family breaks up and clarifying parental responsibilities for the care of the child as well as the particular reference to financial provisions. However, this Bill goes completely against the Children Act 1989 which passed from this Chamber.
The most important area for comment of the family campaign is the proposal to set up an agency. That appears to be a retrogressive step in view of the advance toward family courts taken in the Children Act. One of the fundamental features of the family court is that it will be a unified institution, applying a unified set of legal rules to all families. The idea is to eliminate overlapping jurisdictions and the risk that families may find themselves involved simultaneously in different proceedings in different courts. The Children Act clearly recognises that need for uniformity in providing one concurrent jurisdiction —as has been said by the noble and learned Lord—and power to consolidate proceedings. To divert claims for child maintenance to an agency goes wholly against that trend. The campaign therefore opposes the proposal that assessment of child maintenance should be undertaken by an administrative agency.
Families going through the upheaval and breakdown need a package of support services which a family court and attendant welfare services would

597
provide. There would be no advantage to families in having child maintenance assessed and enforced by a separate agency. Indeed many lone parents are very anxious that those functions are in effect to be taken over by the Department of Social Security. Their experience of the Department of Social Security inevitably forces them to regard it and the officials as hostile to them.
The campaign feels sure that the way to improve the lot of families struggling to cope with marriage breakdown is to set up a family court able to deal sensitively with all issues, supported by a welfare service able to offer conciliation and other support services. I am therefore grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing the matter before the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps I may say that nearly all of us agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness have said. However, now is not the moment to state it. If we support the noble and learned Lord's position against the clause stand part, we kill the Bill. The Bill relates to maintenance. That is important and we all consider that the Bill should go through its stages quickly. But however much we support what the noble and learned Lord said, we cannot agree to killing the Bill at this moment.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his intervention. I understand the reason why the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend introduced this matter—parliamentary ingenuity knows no bounds. Clause 1 is a fairly modest clause giving certain powers about maintenance: enforcement to the courts. It is nothing to do with family courts.
The noble and learned Lord is a great advocate of family courts. He therefore took the opportunity, ingenious as he was—possibly fortified by the fact that I withdrew the last amendment in order to be conciliatory to him—to discuss a matter which has nothing to do with Clause 1.
The Government are considering the means of rationalising and improving the family justice system and that is very important. However, it is too early to say where that will lead us. It raises matters far beyond the scope of the fairly limited aspects of the Bill.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made proposals to concentrate family business before a limited number of county courts. That seems a sensible step in our programme to improve the family justice system, but it does not amount to setting up a single unified family court.
Lard Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may say that no one has proposed a single family court. What has been proposed is a limited structure—a hierarchy of family courts.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say. I am explaining the position to the noble and learned Lord without going into t00 much detail about the virtues or otherwise of a family court. The principle is being considered by my
598
noble friends and my noble and learned friend. A committee has been set up to consider the matter. The noble and learned Lord seemed to consider that there was disagreement between the Home Office and my noble and learned friend's department. I cannot think what makes him believe that there was disagreement between two such eminent departments. I assure him that there is no difference of view between them. The review of the family justice system is being co-ordinated by a committee on which both the Lord Chancellor's department and the Home Office are represented.
I understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about child maintenance. She stated that she did not want it enforced or assessed by an agency. She leads a campaign —as she does with all matters to which she addresses her mind—with great vigour. The legislative proposals to introduce a new agency will be brought before Parliament later this Session in a separate Bill. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate that Bill then.
Baroness Faithfull: I recognise the Minister's surprise at the matter being brought up at this stage. I understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, if one passes such a Bill, it cannot float in the air without administration. It was perhaps understandable that we took the opportunity to put forward the way that it should be administered. I understand that we may not be able to undertake anything now while discussing clause stand part.
However, I hope that my noble friend will forgive us for putting the subject forward. If one has a Bill it must be administered. How will it be administered? If it is to be administered through an agency it is in contradiction of the Children Act 1989.
Earl Ferrers: The agency will operate only if the Bill instituting it is passed into law. Until that happens the law exists as at present, and the clause will be administered by the courts as they administer it now.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: means of payment]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 42, after ("a") insert ("qualifying").
The noble Lord said: It is a gentle, probing little amendment with which we seek some clarification. The amendment will ensure that paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 59 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 both refer to "qualifying maintenance order". At present paragraph (a) refers to "qualifying maintenance order" and paragraph (b) refers to orders that are not maintenance orders. It is unclear why the term "qualifying maintenance order" is used only in paragraph (a) and not in paragraph (b). It begs the question of how maintenance orders which are not qualifying maintenance orders—whatever they are—are to be treated. The amendment clarifies the matter and achieves a pleasing consistency. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am glad for two reasons that the noble Lord has put down the amendment. I confess that I found the position extremely puzzling. It

599
illuminates the complexity of the Bill. That is no more than a characteristic of modern drafting. Leading up to the appointment of the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation in 1975, there were constant complaints of the prolixity, complexity and lack of clarity of our statutes. The Renton Committee made a number of recommendations, of which one was extremely important. It endorsed a memorandum put forward by the two senior Scottish judges. They said in effect, "If you draft in simple general rules that is something we can cope with. We cope with it every day and we can apply it to particular situations. But if you try to cover every foreseeable situation you are sure to miss some that turn up in the courts. The courts will then be completely at a loss as will be the litigants when led into litigation". Later in the Bill we shall see striking examples which illustrate the cogency of that observation and its acceptance by the Renton Committee.
I found the provision extraordinarily difficult to puzzle out. The form of the clause suggests that subsections (1) (a) and (1) (b) are comprehensive, but they are not. As one reads and rereads the provision one sees that there is a missing element; it is the non-qualifying maintenance order which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, identified. One then goes on to ask why it is not there. Without certainty, I believe the reason is that a non-qualifying maintenance order would be outside the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court because it would be a maintenance order in respect of which the respondent, the debtor, was not ordinarily resident in England and Wales. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right.
This is an extraordinary Bill to put before ordinary men and women. In respect of legislation such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 one would expect the person affected to take his case to a solicitor, but that is not so with a Bill of this kind. On the contrary, the people concerned are primarily husband and wife and, by extension, the citizens advice bureaux. It is wrong to face them with this kind of obscurity and complexity.
Nor should they be driven to consult a solicitor. One extremely unfortunate effect of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 will be a diminution in the number of high street solicitors and the concentration of their legal services in large towns and cities. They will not be available to advise on the meaning of a Bill, which is extraordinarily difficult to grasp. For those reasons the Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing the matter forward.
Earl Ferrers: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing the matter forward, but I am not sure that I am. I accept that it is complicated. Perhaps I may explain the situation.
Under Clause 2 of the Bill a magistrates' court is required to specify a particular method of payment when making a qualifying maintenance order. There is only one essential condition which must be satisfied for a maintenance order to become a qualifying maintenance order as the noble and learned Lord said.
600
It is that the debtor must, at the time when the maintenance order is made, ordinarily be resident in England and Wales. That means that he must be within the jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts. In other words, the order could be enforced by a magistrates' court.
If a debtor is ordinarily resident outside the court's jurisdiction—for instance, in Europe, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland—when the maintenance order is made, the court is not required under the Bill to specify a particular method of payment. It is not prevented from doing so but the Bill is based on the principle that it is best to let the magistrates who are hearing the case decide whether such a requirement should be included in a maintenance order which can only be enforced where the debtor is living.
The court can only enforce an order in England and Wales. If the order has to go outside the magistrates' court's jurisdiction—say, to a country in Europe—it will be for that country to enforce the order. We have reciprocal arrangements with many countries. That is the reason the two subsections are slightly different. However, as a matter of general principle we do not believe that it is sensible to require the courts to make orders which are unenforceable.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his support. In so far as I fleetingly understood what the noble Earl said, I should like to take the matter away and think about it. There is at the moment a blinding flash of clarity in my mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 17 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 10 at end insert:
("(7A) In any case where a magistrates' court has power to order money to be paid periodically by the debtor to the creditor and the debtor fails to attend court either in person or by his representative despite having been served with notice of the proceedings, the court shall make an order unless satisfied that it is undesirable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. Both amendments are concerned with the failure to attend hearings or to provide documents. There are many cases of this kind in which the debtor is properly served but deliberately fails to attend a court hearing in order to avoid payment. That leads to long delays in settlement and those delays are the cause of stress in many cases. We need to give the magistrates' courts a new duty in such cases to make orders to discourage debtors from the deliberate evasion of their responsibilities.
I am sure that the new power will be widely welcomed, particularly by the custodial parent who all too often sees the ex-partner playing cat and mouse with the court and often getting away with it for a long time. The new power will tackle the problems of delay and evasion in a way that nothing else in the Bill

601
approaches. It will have a salutary effect on the willingness of any debtor to co-operate with the courts.
I now turn to Amendment No. 19, which deals with another problem that the Bill fails to tackle; that is, the ability of many debtors to hide from the courts the real level of their earnings or capital and deliberately to reduce those in order to lower the cash level awarded within the maintenance order. It is human nature so to do and it is the job of the law to regulate human nature.
The National Council for One Parent Families has wide experience in the field of maintenance settlements. It informs me that there are many cases in which the debtor takes that course of action, claiming to the courts that his income is extremely low. The lone parent knows only too well that reserves of income are carefully hidden away from the prying eyes of the court or that the new mortgage for the £200,000 house could not have been achieved on a declared annual income of £10,000.
It is becoming more and more important because of the growing level of self-employment which the Government have been so keen to encourage. It will become more important still as the Government are intending to make the payment of child maintenance by absent parents an important facet of social policy and of the social security system. We are no longer dealing with the highly paid executive who has ways of manipulating his income. Increasingly, we shall be faced with the need to ensure that the self-employed skilled tradesman cannot evade his parental responsibilities.
The effect of this amendment will be to encourage debtors to provide accurate information at the earliest possible opportunity or to ensure that the courts will offer the creditor redress in cases where he or, in exceptional cases, she fails to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Under the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child is paramount. The anxiety of a mother who cannot obtain money at a time when she is also going through a divorce or separation is devastating for any child. Anything which can be achieved to speed up the process is to be recommended.
Earl Ferrers: Both these amendments would require the magistrates' court to proceed as a result of a party's failure either because the defendant fails to attend the hearing or because one of the parties fails to produce the relevant documents required by the court
I have great sympathy with the thought behind the proposal. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull that when there are divorce proceedings and maintenance orders must be made, nothing is more distressing than for people to find that they cannot obtain the money to which they are entitled.
The incorporation of these amendments into the Bill is unnecessary and, in some ways, inadvisable. Their inclusion would limit the discretion rightly given to magistrates. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
602
already allows a magistrates' court to proceed in the absence of the defendant if it so wishes. I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord adds anything useful to that power.
Similarly, there is no restriction on what inferences magistrates may draw if a party fails to produce evidence. So magistrates are already able to do what they believe to be desirable in the individual circumstances of the case. My fear is that the amendments would give the appearance that the courts were not treating the parties fairly, thus raising rather than lowering the temperature of proceedings which can already be difficult. The courts already have the power to operate in the manner suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I take it that the Minister refers to the sort of matter instanced in Dwyer v. Collins in 1852. Matters can be dealt with in the county court through the rules of evidence. At present however, there is no discovery procedure in the magistrates' court whereby evidence must be disclosed in advance.
We shall need to think more carefully about the matter. I am advised that the powers exist but that they are hardly ever used. Our amendments are intended to give positive power to the courts and to encourage them to resuscitate what is virtually moribund. I may return to the matter on Report; at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: proceedings by clerk and penalty for breach]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 6, after ("commenced") insert ("by virtue of the authority").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21. These are drafting amendments which I am sure will commend themselves to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They clarify the extent of the clerk's power when taking enforcement proceedings on behalf of a creditor.
The first amendment confirms that the clerk must discontinue any proceedings which are commenced under the authority when that authority is cancelled. The second amendment makes it clear that whether the clerk is acting in enforcement proceedings which are commenced at the request of the person whose benefit payments are made or under an authority given by that person, that person continues to have the same liability for all costs which are properly incurred in or related to those proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("or (3) above") and insert ("above at his request or under subsection (3) above by virtue of his authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 49, at end insert:
("(6) If an employer or fellow employee of the debtor harasses or victimises the debtor because he is subject to an attachment of earnings order the debtor may make a complaint to a relevant justice giving details of the harassment or victimisation.
(7) If the relevant justice is satisfied that the nature of the alleged harassment or victimisation is such as to justify the relevant court exercising its power under subsection (8) below, he shall issue a summons directed to the employer or fellow employee requiring him to appear before the relevant court to answer the complaint.
(8) On the hearing of the complaint, the relevant court may order the employer or fellow employee to pay a sum not exceeding £100. Subsection (4) of this section shall apply to this provision as it does to subsection (3).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with harassment or, as so many people call it these days, ha-rassment.
Lord Tordoff: I was hoping that the noble Lord would not use the second pronounciation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: After 20 years as a poor provincial Protestant professor of English literature, it probably hurts me more than Members of the Committee to hear the word being so hideously mispronounced. However, harassment is the subject of the amendment and we are offering to make additional provisions which we hope may be helpful. The effect of the additional provisions will be to give to people who are subject to attachment of earnings orders some protection from victimisation or harassment by their employers or fellow employees.
We consider it important that a debtor who is paying maintenance by an attachment of earnings order should not be harassed or victimised by the people with whom he works as a result of that order. As I pointed out on Second Reading, this is not a piece of lily-livered, soft sentimentalism in favour of some recalcitrant father. It is put forward in the hope that it will encourage people to use attachment of earnings orders in the proper way.
An employer who does not comply with an attachment of earnings order can already be fined £100. This provision means that any other breach such as that set out above will lead to the imposition of the same penalty. Previously, an attachment of earnings order could only be made if a debtor had already defaulted on payment of an order. The effect of the Bill's provisions will be that an attachment of earnings order can be imposed even though no default has occurred. In spite of that, people still associate attachment of earnings orders with someone who does not honour his or her responsibilities. It is in the nature of humanity that the stereotype will stick. It is important that all people, particularly those who have not been in default in any way, should be protected from harassment or victimisation.
The Australian legislation on child maintenance, I am told, contains a provision in similar terms. It may be that here, as in the game of cricket, we should heed the maxim: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for a penetrating intervention that keeps us on the straight and narrow as regards the English language. I agree with him. I think that the word ha-rassment is a terrible Americanisation. Of course, it should be harassment. It is almost as bad as when the word "missile" is referred to as "missal". I always thought that a "missal" was a Roman Catholic prayer book. There is a trend towards use of the wrong words in English.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I am not sure that the writers of the Official Report will be grateful to us for casting our words in such terms. I look forward with interest to seeing how the discussion is reported in tomorrow's edition of Hansard.
Earl Ferrers: It is because it is so difficult for those who report for Hansard that there is a great deal to be said for not speaking too much. Some of the things which the noble Lord has said and which he has prompted me to say would not have been said had the noble Lord been a little more thoughtful of the Hansard writers.
After that diversion, perhaps we may come back to the amendment. It is unacceptable for an employee to suffer harassment or victimisation because he is subject to an attachment of earnings order. I am not aware of any evidence to show that that takes place. The procedure has been available for approximately 20 years and I should have thought that some evidence would have appeared before now in that regard.
While I understand the feelings that prompted the amendment, I am not convinced that it is necessary. However, there is a more serious objection to the amendment. The Bill applies only to attachment of earnings orders that are made in respect of maintenance proceedings. It would be invidious to protect those who are subject to attachment of earnings orders in respect of maintenance orders from harassment and victimisation but not those who are subject to such orders in respect of judgment debts or administration orders. For that reason it would be unfortunate to distinguish attachment of earnings orders.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On the contrary, it would be desirable to protect some people even if all cannot be protected. We do not want anyone to be put off paying through fear of that kind of stigma. In our view it would be useful to start along a righteous path even though the Bill does not go the whole way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, retaining leave to come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]

  Use of bailiffs in recovery of fines etc
  —(1) Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a maintenance order of a magistrates' court and the court decides to issue a warrant of distress under section 76 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 for the purpose of levying the sum and the warrant is not directed to the constables of the

  605
  police area in which the warrant is issued, the warrant shall not be executed otherwise than by a bailiff holding a certificate issued under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.
  (2) A warrant of distress issued under section 76 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 shall provide that—

  (a) a person appointed to execute the warrant shall make reasonable efforts to make personal contact with the person against whom the distress is to be levied and, upon doing so, shall show that person their written authorisation to act;

  (b) where a person appointed to execute the warrant discovers that the person against whom the distress is to be levied is either in hospital, has a mental or physical disability or a language difficulty that the warrant will not be executed without further instruction from the magistrates' court;

  (c) tools, books, vehicles, and other items of equipment as are necessary to the defaulter for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (d) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the defaulter and his family shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (e) any items bought with social fund loans or grants shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (f) a reserve price is fixed for any distress which is to be sold at public auction;

  (g) there is a maximum charge, for expenses and any other costs, that the person executing the warrant may deduct out of the amount realised by sale of the distress.").

  The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with the subject of bailiffs. The Bill is concerned with the framework for setting and collecting maintenance. It dots not seek to review the existing arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders made by magistrates.
  One method of enforcing orders is the issue of warrants which may be carried out by bailiffs. It is a system of enforcement increasingly used by magistrates' courts, particularly in relation to the so-called coma unity charge. We are concerned about the effect of more frequent use of such enforcement in respect of maintenance orders if the Bill is passed.
  There is urgent need for reform and for more rigorous control of the activities of bailiffs appointed by the magistrates' courts who currently execute warrants largely unregulated. Bailiffs who work for the county courts are subject to regulation under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which stipulates goods which may not be seized under a warrant of execution. Most importantly, bailiffs acting on county court warrants are employed directly by the court. On the other hand, magistrates' courts rely on private bailiffs.
  The use of bailiffs is costly. In the context of maintenance payments, the debtor's capacity to meet future payments may easily be directly diminished. Under the warrant, goods belonging to the defaulter are seized by bailiffs and sold to raise money in order to pay off the amount that is owing. Also, bailiffs add on the cost of collection; that can be quite considerable. If essential goods are seized, the defaulter may need to use money that would have gone into future maintenance payments for the family in order to replace the goods which have been seized.
  Evidence has been brought before me from citizens advice bureaux all over the country concerning the actions of private bailiffs when they execute warrants issued by magistrates' courts. There are a number of problems which the amendment seeks to resolve. A citizens advice bureau in Cheshire recently reported that a bailiff charged £70 to the debtor for sending a van to collect that debtor's goods, even though no goods were taken away. Another citizens advice bureau in Essex reports a bailiff taking a second-hand three-piece suite which had been given by the local authority social services department. In addition, they took a black and white portable television set which did not belong to the debtor.
  Additional information arrived on my desk only this morning from the National Consumer Council. It gives many examples of bailiffs seizing goods which are essential to families. Refrigerators, washing machines and cookers are frequently taken. The removal of essential household goods causes families great hardship and forces them further into debt if they have to borrow money to replace those goods. The sum of £100 of exemption for clothing and bedding is ridiculously low. Sometimes the items have been purchased with public funds in order to meet a family's desperate need. The National Consumer Council brings to my attention one case of a mother with an incontinent daughter who lost a washing machine that had been bought with a social security fund loan which she had to continue to repay.
  Our first concern in proposing the amendment is that magistrates' courts should always use certificated bailiffs; that is, bailiffs who have been granted a certificate by a judge or registrar of the county court. That is currently the only means of quality control in the private bailiffs sector. The county court will not grant a certificate to an applicant who fails to satisfy the court that he is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate or that he has sufficient knowledge of the law about distress. Nor will a certificate be granted to an applicant who carries on or will be employed in any business which includes buying debts. When applying for a certificate a bailiff needs to disclose previous convictions for fraud, dishonesty or violence and needs to give information about debt judgments, insolvency, bankruptcy or receiverships. Once the procedure and the court are satisfied, the holder is given a general certificate which lasts for two years. No provision exists which ensures that bailiffs who are appointed by magistrates' courts hold such certificates.
  The amendment would be a great improvement. I beg to move.
  Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. Social services departments find themselves in a very real dilemma. I know of cases such as those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. In some cases bailiffs have removed equipment from the home which means that a mother has been unable to look after her child properly. Therefore, the child is in need of care and protection.

  607
  We have a situation where two Bills contradict each another and result in social workers being placed in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
  Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment. It does not give anything away; it states what magistrates should do in any event.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has produced yet another amendment which I find attractive. In some ways it grieves me to inform the noble Lord that I find it difficult to accept the amendment. I do not state that by way of being obstinate or through lack of understanding. I say it because of the technical problem that the amendment, like some others, produces.
  We understand the problems and distress that occur when bailiffs are involved, but we have had the benefit of the recently published report on private bailiffs by the National Consumer Council. The chairman of that council sent the report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with a request that he consider its suggestions in so far as they concern magistrates' courts. The report is receiving careful consideration. The amendment seeks to embody the proposals in primary legislation, but I hope I can give the Committee some encouragement by explaining the action which we propose to take. I should perhaps at the same time tell the Committee that we do not consider it would be sensible to accept the amendment at this stage.
  The Committee should be aware that the Home Office has established a group of practitioners from the magistrates' courts service which is charged with identifying and disseminating best practice. The group is well advanced with the preparation of guidance on fine enforcement. This will include material on bailiffs and will, among other things, include in effect a model contract for their employment. The group has been asked specifically to consider the National Consumer Council's proposals with a view to their inclusion, where appropriate, as best practice.
  The first part of the amendment would enable distress warrants to be executed only by the police or duly certificated bailiffs. I understand that the best practice guidance is likely to recommend that certificated bailiffs should be used; but we have here a good illustration of the dangers of incorporating into primary legislation very specific procedural requirements which, in due course and for one reason or another may have to be changed. The amendment would also have the effect of excluding the execution of warrants by the courts' own enforcement staff, which I assume is not the intention. Even if that omission were to be corrected it would be undesirable to tie the courts' enforcement powers to specific procedures under which certification of bailiffs is made and which, as I said, might be changed in due course. Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is planning a revision of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.
  A similar point arises in relation to the remaining parts of the amendment which set out detailed
  608
  procedural rules. I do not wish to quarrel with their substance in all cases. For example, we are at present consulting the magistrates' courts service with a view to bringing the rules defining which goods may be distrained into line with the rules governing distress ordered by the higher courts, as proposed by the National Consumer Council. However, these are matters properly governed by rules and best practice guidance as the National Consumer Council envisages rather than by primary legislation. If we try to do this by primary legislation we shall almost certainly find, before too long, that some adjustment is needed which will then be difficult to accommodate.
  Some of the matters covered by the amendment are already covered by rules of court, and rightly so. We are looking hard at those rules and at the guidance to support them. With that background to our views I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will consider that on the whole it is better to leave these matters to rules and guidance rather than put them into primary legislation.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I detect encouraging signs of warmth, sympathy and movement from the Minister. I am delighted that he views this matter in the same way as we do. I am encouraged also by the fact that at his back is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Other Members on the Government Back Benches seem to be supporting us.
  Earl Ferrers: I intervene only to say that it is always a frightening experience to have my noble friend behind me.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on this side of the Committee sometimes regard the noble Baroness as one of our greatest friends.
  Earl Ferrers: So do we.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are all agreed that in the operation of private bailiffs errors are made in some quantity, and there is wide concern about that. Private bailiffs certainly need to be regulated. I am not convinced that the best method of doing that is not through primary legislation, and the Bill offers a good opportunity. However, I prefer not to press the matter now. I should like to consider what has been said, encouraged by the warmth generated across the Dispatch Box by the noble Earl. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: general]:
  [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Variation of orders for periodical payment made under Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978]:
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Variation of orders for periodical payment made in magistrates' courts under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989]:
  [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I mentioned earlier the recommendation of the senior Scottish judges to the Renton Committee and the endorsement by the Renton Committee of their recommendations: in other words, that there should be legislation in general rules which the courts can then apply to the specific instances that come before them rather than endeavouring to cover every situation that can be envisaged. This clause points the moral and adorns that tile. It deals with amendments to the Children Act of two Sessions ago. That Act was drafted in the current style of seeking to cover every possible situation.
  Sure enough, it was rapidly discovered that there were many situations that had not been envisaged. At every stage of the Children Bill's progress through this Chamber, where it originated, amendments were made to cover further situations, including on Third Reading. The Bill then went to the House of Commons and was returned to this Chamber with more amendments to it, almost all of them government amendments, which exceeded in length the Bill as originally sent to the other place.
  The matter did not even rest there. When the Courts and Legal Services Bill was going through Parliament last Session it included a long schedule —Schedule 12—making further amendments to the Children Act to cover situations that had been thought of since that Act came into force. Again, that happened when the Commons amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill were considered, and once more that long schedule had to be further amended.
  Now we have this Bill, with still more amendments to the Children Act. If ever there was a lesson to be learnt—the Renton Committee and the two great Scottish judges have been vindicated—it is from the history of the Children Act. Therefore I ask the Government and in particular the noble Earl, who is the Deputy Leader of the House, to draw the lesson that is finally pointed—or perhaps not so finally—by this clause and to reconsider our method of drafting.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seems to have it in for the parliamentary draftsmen this evening. I realise that it is difficult when substantial amendments are made as they were to the Children Bill and also when they are tabled regarding this Bill. Clause 6 simply repeats the powers given under the Act in other maintenance legislation which is mentioned in Clauses 4 and 5. It is necessary to make these alterations to the Children Act.
  The noble and learned Lord knows far better than I that all the legislation dealing with maintenance orders is extremely complicated. It is complicated for those who are versed in the law and it is also unbelievably complicated for those who are not. I shall see to it that the Exocet which the noble and learned Lord has launched towards the parliamentary
  610
  draftsmen finds its home. I do not guarantee that I will support the noble and learned Lord's observations, but I shall see to it that those concerned are made aware of them.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to maintenance orders registered in or confirmed by magistrates' courts or registered in the High Court]:
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 36:
  Page 16, line 47, leave out ("respectively").
  Page 19, line 33, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 19, line 39, leave out ("by standing order, etc. or not") and insert ("or not by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) of that Act").
  Page 22, line 50, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 23, line 17, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 24, line 13, leave out ("respectively").
  Page 26, line 48, leave out from ("Act") to ("be") in line 49.
  Page 27, line 5, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 6.
  Page 28, line 39, leave out ("in") and insert ("conferred by").
  Page 28, line 47, leave out ("respectively").
  The noble Earl said: These are all minor technical and drafting amendments which clarify the provisions of Schedule 1. That schedule applies the provisions of the Bill to the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a very small point to make concerning the Title which I hope the noble Earl will consider. I refer to the last words of the Title. If any words can be omitted from almost any Bill it is to the advantage of the public. The words are:
  "to amend section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act".
  That is another example of second and third thoughts having to be made. That section of the Courts and Legal Services Act is only amended in a line or two of the schedule relating to minor amendments. The majority of the amendments in that schedule are not mentioned in the Title. For the life of me I cannot see why that particular amendment is mentioned.
  Earl Ferrers: I assume the reason why that was included was because the parliamentary counsel considered it necessary. As with so many of the amendments with which the noble and learned Lord has sought to take issue, I shall discuss this matter with the parliamentary draftsmen as well. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not ask me to consider the whole Bill with the parliamentary draftsmen, but I shall certainly consider this aspect with them.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I express my thanks to the noble Earl for his usual courtesy. I would not like it to be thought that I "have it in" in any derogatory sense

  611
  towards parliamentary counsel. The present mode of drafting is wrong in many ways. I am very sorry that the recommendations of the Renton Committee were not accepted. I believe that part of the fault lies in the fact that the legislation committee of the Cabinet no longer performs its traditional role of scrutinising legislation from the point of view of draftsmanship. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, approves of that. He sat on the legislation committee for many years.
  I have nothing against the parliamentary draftsmen. Their job is made all the more difficult by the present style of drafting. From going through a schedule to this Bill it astonishes me to see the depth and thoroughness of the research that has taken place. I have worked in many capacities with parliamentary counsel. I have the highest admiration for their intellectual attainment and industry. I would like to see the style of drafting simplified not only for the benefit of the ordinary citizen but to ease the existence of parliamentary counsel.
  Earl Ferrers: I realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has not "got it in" for the parliamentary counsel. I think that I used that expression in a somewhat colloquial sense. The noble and learned Lord was quite right to raise these matters. All of us hate the excessive use of words. It is only when people like the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are vigilant that we are made to think again. Drafting has become more complicated. The whole of life and Bills have become more complicated. Those who have to try to deal with such Bills, whether as legal or lay people, are always glad when matters are simple. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen would consider the matter that way. I have a horrible trait myself in that I covet almost everyone else's job. However, the one job that I do not covet is that of the parliamentary draftsman. He loves it. I assure the noble and learned Lord that his views are passed to the parliamentary counsel together with his sympathy.
  Title agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  5.28 p.m.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the committee.

Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
5.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before I start on the purpose of the Bill I cannot resist giving a little plug to a particularly fine
612
exhibition of the development board's activities in the upper waiting hall in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that those who are interested in this Bill will visit that exhibition.
Baroness White: My Lords, some of us have already done so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill, as affected by Clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Development Board for Rural Wales from the present level of £100 million to £175 million. Present forecasts suggest that the present limit will be reached during the 1991–92 financial year. It is therefore necessary to raise the limit now so as not to inhibit the development board's contribution to the development of that region in Wales for which it is responsible. It is customary when setting financial limits to determine a figure sufficient to cover a period of about five years. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that the limit should be £175 million.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain briefly the key objectives of the Development Board for Rural Wales. This can be succinctly said to be the expansion and diversification of the economy and the promotion of the social well-being of the people of mid-Wales. The development board's area covers the most rural parts of Wales. I am nervous about pronouncing the names but I shall try. They are: the districts of Ceredigion in Dyfed, Merionnydd in Gwynedd, and all three districts of Powys; Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Brecon. It is an area that covers some 40 per cent. of Wales but has only 8 per cent. of the total population of the Principality residing within its boundaries.
Operating since April 1977, the development board has played a major role in helping to increase the numbers of people living in mid-Wales. The board has used its resources efficiently. Its activities are focused on encouraging, stimulating and strengthening the private sector within its area. Indeed, its clearly articulated economic strategy is contingent on a thriving private sector, creating jobs, prosperity and confidence.
Your Lordships will be aware that one of the major economic challenges for rural areas is the exodus of population from rural to urban areas. This is particularly pronounced with the young people who are attracted by the perceived benefits of an urban lifestyle.
Reasonably good progress is being made to halt the outward flow. In 1971 on the night of the census there was a population of 185,000. The 1988 mid-year estimates, however, indicate that the population is now 213,500, an increase of 15·2 per cent. This increase coincides with the evolution of the development board's policies since its creation in 1977. However, we in government are aware that good as those figures are there are still difficulties with the continuing loss of young people and the continuing depopulation of the most remote rural areas and the particular challenge of a worsening age structure with high dependency ratios and a comparatively high population of people over retirement age. But I believe

613
that our policies help to create an environment in which young people can find new jobs in manufacturing industry, in tourism and in service industries, providing a much greater diversity of employment opportunities.
It is obvious to all that the virtues of a rural lifestyle combined with a skilled, talented, and committed workforce, together with an area of outstanding environmental scenic beauty, are appealing to many in business. There can be no doubt that entrepreneurship has indeed been cultivated and is beginning to flourish in rural Wales; and the signs are that this will go from strength to strength in the 1990s.
The development board plays a most important social role for the life of the people in its region. The board, by virtue of Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, can offer grants to local authorities and other statutory under takers and help or assist such measures as the board considers will contribute to the social development of its territory. Since 1979 some £4·9 million of grant assistance has been provided towards more that 3,800 social development projects with a total project cost of £23 million. It is this social role which has enabled the development board to weave a tapestry which, combined with its economic activities, has encouraged young people to stay in the area.
The board's primary objective is the creation of a self-sustaining rural economy. I believe that this is being achieved in no uncertain measure by the provision of an ever-widening range of manufacturing industry which leads to the creation of high quality jobs. 1t is this diverse economy which can complement the quality of life in terms of the culture, language and environment of mid-Wales.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships so that the Development Board for Rural Wales can continue its good work and continue to build on its past successes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
5.35 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am especially pleased to welcome the exhibition upstairs and to give our support to this small Bill. It is non-controversial and non-political and is very important for the people of mid-Wales. Perhaps I may make a modest claim. I was present at the discussions which took place at the Welsh Office between 1974 and 1976 and which culminated in the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.
The idea that there should be a statutory rural development board for mid-Wales had its origins in the constituency Labour parties of Cardiganshire and Montgomeryshire, but it was the then Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. John Morris, who after much skirmishing took the significant step of setting up the statutory board.
I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Bill, for summarising the key objectives of the 1976 Act, for describing the way in which the board has worked and for drawing our attention to its current commitments. I am sure that the Minister will join me in paying much
614
deserved tribute to Mr. Glyn Davies, the chairman of the board, and to the line of distinguished chairmen of the board. All those interested in mid-Wales must feel grateful to the board, its chairman and officers for what has been achieved.
The noble Baroness made clear that the main objective in setting up the board was to combat rural depopulation in the erstwhile five counties of mid-Wales. The five counties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady White will know, had a long history of rural depopulation, but the five counties had worked together in partnership for at least 21 years in the mid-Wales Industrial Development Association to combat depopulation. It is that experience of working together for 21 years that explains why the boundaries of the statutory board are where they are.
Notwithstanding the considerable achievements of the board, there can be no doubt that outward migration, particularly of young people between the ages of 15 and 25, remains a very serious problem. The population expansion of 15 per cent. to which the Minister referred conceals the continued migration of young people from mid-Wales and conceals the unbalanced age structure. We fear that as agriculture sheds further labour over the coming years, depopulation will become worse. That is not meant to be a counsel of despair. Nevertheless, it illustrates the need for a realistically-based, long-term economic and social approach to the development of mid-Wales.
It would be helpful if the Minister when she replies to the debate could disclose the depopulation assumptions which are available. Could we perhaps have the Welsh Office assumptions for depopulation in mid-Wales between now and the end of the century, so that at least we know the scale of the problem?
Of course we are glad to learn from the chairman of the board, Mr. Glyn Davies, that as a result of the current factory construction programme about 1,000 additional jobs per annum will become available between now and the end of the century. However, we cannot make a reliable judgment about the adequacy of the programme unless we have a complete picture of the magnitude of the problem against which any judgment must be made. If there is a gap between the factory-building programme and the anticipated rate of depopulation, we must concentrate upon closing it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell the House something about the depopulation figures. I see that she wishes to intervene, and I am most happy for her to do so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that I am terribly worried about him. I believe I am right in saying that he cannot speak twice in the same debate. Should he in fact be speaking at this point? I understood that he was to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. However, I do not want to stymie the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I understood that I was in order in speaking at this stage, but if I am mistaken I apologise.
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Lord and myself have in fact now changed places.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I apologise for any inconvenience caused. As I was saying, I hope that those figures will become available.
The point is often made that there are other rural districts outside the remit of the Rural Development Board which have similar problems to those within its remit and they should therefore be brought within the board's territory. In passing, I must say that this allows us to conclude that there are people in many areas of Wales who believe that the board has much to offer them. Indeed, it is generally accepted that areas with similar problems in similar circumstances should be even-handedly treated. I would not like to distinguish between one area and another.
However, all that is not to say that areas outside the territorial remit of the DBRW in similar circumstances are not getting helpful, although not identical, treatment from the resources of the Welsh Development Agency. Indeed, during the course of the past few days I heard that the WDA has over the past two or three years embarked upon innovative, integrated schemes of development for some rural areas in the Llyn peninsula in Pentrefoelas.
When discussing the Bill in another place the Secretary of State indicated that the question of whether or not the territory of the DBRW would be extended will again be considered during the course of the coming year. I believe that that statement from the Secretary of State will be widely noticed by those in the local authority world and by others. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House on what grounds of principle the Secretary of State will decide whether or not to extend the territory of the DBRW? Many of us would be interested to learn the criteria.
The two bodies—namely, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency —have had 13 to 14 years in which to settle down. I cannot help thinking that the record of the DBRW and that of the WDA in rural areas—I emphasise that I am confining the role of the WDA to the rural areas—should now be analysed to ascertain what lessons may be learnt. I believe that such an examination would have to take into account the number of jobs which have been created and the number which have been retained—that is, when it is clear that they had been retained as a result of support from the agencies —the duration of the jobs and the financial commitments involved. At the end of the day we are mindful that the WDA and the DBRW are competitors for the available resources. Therefore, we want to see the board and the WDA making the best possible use of them.
Side by side with the need for new jobs and the retention of family farms in mid-Wales, there is an acute shortage of low-cost housing to meet local demand. We hear a great deal about this, but in view of the contents of an open letter to the Secretary of State for Wales published last week in the
616
Welsh-language press, I am not at all sure that the Welsh Office accepts that the housing position in rural Wales is unsatisfactory. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to that open letter and I hope that the Welsh Office will respond to it in due course.
At the time of the 1976 Act there were genuine worries about empowering a statutory board to provide housing to meet local demand because, theoretically, this would call into question the responsibilities of the district councils. However, during the past 11 years the position has changed. By now Tai Cymru is taking the lead in the provision of low-cost housing in many parts of rural Wales. That being the position, we suggest that the role of the DBRW in the provision of housing, which is an extremely limited one, should now be re-opened.
There are at least two other considerations which call for examination. I shall merely refer to them. The first is whether the DBRW should be given greater responsibility in ensuring the viability of the small family farm. Secondly, there is the question of whether it should be given more responsibility for promoting certain aspects of tourism. It seems to me that the Welsh Office Ministers appear to be content that the existing powers of their department of agriculture and those of the Welsh Tourist Board and of Tai Cymru should remain untouched, while possibly accepting that there is a need for greater co-ordination.
However, some of us are not clear where this co-ordination takes places and who will ensure that it does so. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Secretary of State has regular and frequent joint meetings with the chairmen of the DBRW, the Welsh Tourist Board, Tai Cymru and with the head of the Agriculture Department, those being the separate bodies which currently operate in the area. I must leave those matters there. Nevertheless it seems to many of us that the functions and powers of the board need to be reviewed from time to time in the light of experience and changing conditions.
I believe that the Minister mentioned the fact that the DBRW was set up to promote the economic and social well-being of the people of mid-Wales. That twofold role is to be found firmly embedded in Section 1(1) of the Act. Therefore, unlike the Welsh Development Agency, there must be a social dimension to the policies and programmes of the DBRW.
We have taken note of the figures which the Minister gave when she dealt with the implementation of a social dimension of the board's policies. But some of us find it a little disturbing that the implementation of the social dimension appears to have been of less importance in recent years. No doubt—if I am correct in drawing that conclusion—the board was influenced by what it regarded as the dominant feelings and emphasis of the Government; but the need to promote social well-being is clearly stated in Section 1, and many of us hope that the board will now enhance the status of its social development department.
Had the Minister been present in your Lordships' House on 19th April last year when we discussed the

617
problems of the Welsh-speaking rural communities, she would not be surprised that I want to raise the topic of the board's policy towards the Welsh language. Many of the communities of mid-Wales, which are now under grave economic and social stress, have made an outstanding contribution to the Welsh language. So the case for strengthening the economic basis of those communities is even stronger than the economic arguments would indicate. The crisis of those communities, and of the Welsh language, stands out clearly in the minds of our foremost writers and poets. I shall be interested to learn to what extent the board within its own administration, facilitates the use of the Welsh language; and to what extent in its activities throughout mid-Wales where it operates it assists the Welsh language. We should bear in mind the enormous influx of non-Welsh-speaking immigrants in the past 10 or 15 years. Can the DBRW give financial support to the strategy of the Welsh Joint Education Committee to teach the Welsh language to the immigrants settling down in the district within its boundaries? If it has the power to do so, will it do so?
Finally, it would be helpful if we could have particulars of the current expenditure by the Secretary of State under Section 26 of the 1976 Act on, first, the social developments of Wales, and, secondly, the Welsh language. It is not easy to do justice to this important Bill in the 16 minutes at one's disposal, but I have done my best to express gratitude to the board, its chairman and staff and to concentrate upon the major issues as I see them.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Bill. The Development Board for Rural Wales has been a considerable success. The Bill is a small one which adds to its financial resources for the next five years. We should look at what the board has achieved. In the 1950s and early 1960s, depopulation was the greatest problem affecting mid-Wales. The area with which we are concerned is the one most dependent upon agriculture in the whole of the United Kingdom. At present, when the agricultural future of mid-Wales is unsure because of the uncertainties with regard to the protection provided by the common agricultural policy, there is again great anxiety in mid-Wales that we do not slide into another period of depre5sion.
The development board has been of the greatest assistance to mid-Wales since its inception, but it was not conceived in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, outlined. I was a candidate in the 1962 by-election in Montgomeryshire. Before that, I advocated a rural board for mid-Wales. I wrote a booklet about it with Dr. Geraint Jenkins, the present curator of the folk museum at St. Fagans. Our proposal was to set up a development board to operate in a number of towns in mid-Wales along the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States. That was countered by the considerable support there then was for a large new town in mid-Wales. It was what was called a linear town, and it was to be built from Newtown along the valley to Caersws and then to LLanidloes. It would have
618
provided a town of considerable population based on the new town provisions passed by the Labour Government in the late 1940s.
One of those who espoused that idea with great enthusiasm was the late Jim Griffiths, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales. He was very enthusiastic about the plan. I was very much against it for reasons that must be obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It would have created enormous social and cultural problems. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, was of the same view, and she brought her influence to bear on the proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, deserves considerable praise for rejecting the plan for the huge new town and for adopting a much more modest plan of developing Newtown. The Newtown Development Corporation came into being. It was the genesis of the evolution that resulted in the setting up of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Newtown Development Corporation was enlarged to form the Development Board for Rural Wales. It is wrong to suggest that it merely emerged in 1974, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has throughout referred to a development board for rural Wales. He is a lawyer. One word is missing from his statement. He never referred to a statutory rural hoard. We are talking about a statutory rural board.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, that is a pedantic point, if I may say so. It is one lawyer talking to another. The interesting point about the Development Board for Rural Wales and its predecessors is that all parties accepted the principle behind it: that public money should be invested in mid-Wales to meet an economic, social and cultural problem. The board invests public money with the aim primarily of priming the pump economically to safeguard certain communities culturally and socially so that eventually the whole area will again blossom economically and will be able to sustain itself without the board's aid. It is a combination of public investment and private enterprise, the one encouraging the other.
The activities of the board and its predecessors have had a considerable effect on the economic, social and cultural sphere. I join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in expressing the hope that the board will do more than it has done in the past to safeguard the Welsh culture, though it has not been inactive in that sphere. The present young, energetic and able chairman, Mr. Glyn Davies, has that matter close to his heart. There is a good deal to be done at present because we are in recession. Rural areas such as mid-Wales tend to be more affected by recession than areas closer to the main markets. There is much to be done economically and socially with regard to the considerable influx of newcomers into the area, to fit them in, make them feel part of the community and harmonise the sometimes clashing interests between one culture and another. Historically, Montgomeryshire and other counties of the border areas are extremely good at doing this, with one culture respecting the other.

619
It is an interesting reflection: I know of areas in Montgomeryshire which ceased to be Welsh-speaking decades ago. They still run eisteddfods and hold Welsh competitions at them, but the eisteddfods are conducted entirely in English. One culture merges with another. In my experience, there has also historically been considerable respect by one culture for another in my area.
If I were to ask myself what could best be done to assist the Development Board for Rural Wales to encourage the economy to flourish in the immediate future, it would be to make sure that the board is allowed to support industries ancillary to agriculture as well as agriculture itself. This is the key to the future. Obviously, agriculture will still be the economic backbone of the area. The marketing of agricultural products will be all important.
Wales, particularly mid-Wales, is an enormous sheep producer; there are probably more sheep per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. The sheep are of high quality and they have to be marketed, sold to the continent and elsewhere. There is the purchase of goods for use in agriculture, and the creation of other ancillary industries. The Development Board for Rural Wales knows full well from its own experience how the fact of building factories and bringing in industries from outside has often resulted in considerable spending power being added to rural homes—farmers' and farmworkers' homes. The wives, daughters and sons of those homes are employed in other industries but so help the home economy. I hope that at some stage in the near future there will be a general review of the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales. It has been lucky in its chairmen who have all been dedicated to the area. It has general support. There have been shortcomings at times, but they are far outweighed by the benefits it has brought to the area.
It would be helpful to examine the board's remit to see whether it can be brought up to date in the light of present economic, cultural and social conditions. In the meantime, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington; her pronunciation of Welsh names is improving.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, the small number of Members of your Lordships' House who were also present on 15th November will remember that we debated the report on The Future of Rural Society of the committee on the European Communities under the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I then touched upon the problems and opportunities of the Development Board for Rural Wales. I owe an apology to the Minister because I misread my notes and referred to designation 5(b) in the report of the European Community on funding for rural areas. I should have made a much more general reference to the ERDF funds which have been applicable for a number of years. The Minister kindly sent me a note following the debate and I apologise for causing her and her department a little extra work in correcting what I said on the designation.
620
I emphasise that I have a considerable interest in the well-being of mid-Wales. As a small child my first Welsh home was briefly at Llandinam; my first remembered holidays were spent at Sam and then Gregynog. I have close personal and family connections with Ceredigion and for the past 20 years I have been a ratepayer, and am now a poll tax payer, first in Montgomeryshire and now in Brecon. It is therefore understandable that I have a close interest in this subject.
I had that interest when many years ago I was Minister of State at the Welsh Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was quite correct in saying that the first or charter Secretary of State for Wales, the late Mr. Jim Griffiths, wanted a large new town in mid-Wales. However, his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, thought—and I concurred, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—that a more modest new town would be less of a social and cultural shock to the Welsh system of society. Hence, we have a new town in Telford on one side of the border and a more modest one in Newtown in Montgomeryshire.
Some extra money is to be made available under the Bill for the Development Board for Rural Wales, although no one has yet explained whether or not the provision will be adequate. This board came to life under the Labour Administration of the late 1970s. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies commented, it owed a good deal to the local authorities in the area which it now administers. They had decided that some co-operative and co-ordinated effort was desirable. They set up a fairly informal organisation of their own—the predecessor to the DBRW.
It is only right to mention that considerable credit was due to Mr. Peter Garbett Edwards of Llandinam, who did a great deal to support the earlier organisation. He later became a senior officer of the DBRW.
I do not wish to repeat what I said about mid-Wales on 15th November or to add to our collective reminiscences. I listened with close attention to the Minister's remarks and I emphasise that we on this side of the House strongly support the social as well as the entrepreneurial work of the DBRW. We wish the board, its chairman and the newly appointed chief executive all success and trust that they can rely on continuing government support at an adequate level. The word "adequate" is tricky because views differ as to what is and what is not adequate. It is clear that without considerable public assistance one will not obtain the advance in private enterprise that is one of the aims of the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would perhaps not wish me to do more than refer briefly, as I must, to the difficulties that arose on the flagship of mid-Wales: the Laura Ashley company. He himself had a creditable relationship with it. Unfortunately, as we all know, the full expectations of continuing success for that company have not been fulfilled. We are thankful that a good deal has been rescued, but one cannot avoid recognising that it has been a severe shock to local and national susceptibilities that a company with such a reputation found itself in difficulties. We can only

621
hope that under the present administration it will still be able, to fulfil a function in mid-Wales which, so far at any rate, no other enterprise has been in a position to emulate.
We hope very much that the efforts of the Development Board for Rural Wales, in conjunction with the other organisations of which the tourist board is one of the most important, will be sustained. I wish to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who also spoke on 15th November. He remarked that unless the agricultural problems are brought under adequate control, it will be very difficult especially in some of our upland areas, to maintain a population which can sustain a pattern of society that one would wish to see.
Our farming community is very uncertain about its fate over the next few years. I am all for diversification and for providing alternative forms of remunerative occupation, but there is still great uncertainty in the farming community. The noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate is closely concerned with the agricultural industry. It would be helpful if she could enlighten us with her thoughts on the relationship, with which a great deal of the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales must be connected. The noble Baroness may not be able to tell us what will happen in the GATT negotiations or about the 30 per cent. cut in subsidy, but I am sure she recognises that, however active the DBRW is and however enthusiastic we may be about it, if there is no solution to the agricultural problems which face a great part of rural Wales, it will be difficult to achieve the success that we would all wish to see in the near future
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, whose experience in these matters goes back far further than mine. I must apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. However, no one informed this side of the House of an alteration in the order of speakers. Therefore, when I interrupted the noble Lord I hoped I was being helpful. It was done in the friendliest spirit. At the same time I wish to thank the noble Lord for his great courtesy in giving me an indication of the points he wished to raise. I congratulate all three speakers on their long association with the organisation we are discussing. I join in their congratulations to the chairman, the board and the staff who work for that excellent organisation.
I pass directly to answering the various points that have been made. I hope that they will be regarded as satisfactory. If not, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will no doubt tell me. The mid-Wales population increase between 1987 and 1996 is expected to be 4.5 per cent. compared with an increase of 3 per cent. overall in Wales. In 1971 the population was 185,000; in 1988 it was 213,000. That is an increase of 15.2 per cent. By 1996 the figure is expected to rise to 219,000. That is as far as I can go at the moment. Extending the DBRW's territory—
Baroness White: My Lords, I entirely understand that the noble Baroness may not have the figures with which to answer my question now. However, without some age breakdown of the total number, it is difficult to judge what the real social effect of the small increase in total population will be. However, if it is shown that all the young people leave and all the retired people buy their cheaper houses on our side of the border, that reveals a very different pattern.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall see what we can do in the next few minutes. I shall continue to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on extending the territory of the Development Board for Rural Wales. While the Secretary of State for Wales, by virtue of Section 1(2) of the Act, has powers to extend the board's boundaries, it has not hitherto been considered prudent to do so. In fact, the issue was addressed by the financial management review in 1986 which concluded that any extension to the board's territory would merely result in the dilution of its efficiency and resources.
In reply to the noble Lord's next question, I should say that the Welsh Office monitors on a continuous basis the work of the DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that they are achieving their objectives in rural areas.
The housing situation is the responsibility of Tai Cymru. The Welsh Office has been aware for some time of the problems faced by people in rural Wales in securing affordable homes and a number of measures are being undertaken. Housing for Wales has directed around £25 million—no less than a quarter of its resources—to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year. In recent years we have made available additional allocations/credit approvals totalling £2·8 million to those rural district councils with severe second home problems to enable them to purchase dwellings for rent or resale or to purchase land for housing development. To help mitigate the effects of immigration and second homes, public sector landlords in national parks and certain designated rural areas may impose conditions on the resale of dwellings sold under the right to buy.
Within the next few months we will be issuing planning advice on land for low cost housing in rural areas following consultation last year. Last year Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative to assist local people, especially young people, to find suitable homes which they can afford in their own communities. The initiative is being run on a pilot basis in 31 villages across rural Wales, the majority of homes being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right to return the home eventually to the relevant housing association. More significantly, earlier this month Housing for Wales published the results of two vital research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. One of the studies which assessed the demand for social housing in rural Wales is of a technical nature and will require careful study before we can say what decisions may need to be made about the direction of future resources. The second report on the importance of

623
affordable housing for young people in determining their decision to remain in their home communities goes further than housing issues. Housing for Wales intends to call a working conference early in the new year to discuss the findings of both studies. It will draw on the expertise of those organisations with an interest in the quality of rural life.
Tourism is the responsibility of the Wales Tourist Board. Some 20 per cent. of the budget of the DBRW is tourism-related. Indeed there are frequent meetings to co-ordinate and collaborate tourism strategy with the Wales Tourist Board, the Mid-Wales Tourism Council and local authorities. A new tourism strategy has just been agreed by the development board and a key element is the continued promotion of country hotels in the board's area. The promotion of a very successful Welsh gold collection of attractive country house hotels will be extended to other countries, including the USA. Both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned the social side of the board's activities. The social dimension features in the board's policies and plans. It must be remembered that the DBRW has not only an economic but also a social remit.
The questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in connection with agriculture go rather wider than the Bill. However, as I said in reply to the debate on 15th November to which the noble Baroness referred, I am well aware of the uncertainty facing the agriculture industry. As she will imagine, I probably know more about that than I do about Wales.
The analysis of age structure for which the noble Baroness asked is not available. I shall write to her on the subject. The Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairmen of all the non-departmental public bodies in Wales and is in daily contact with senior officers in his department.
With regard to the Welsh language, the DBRW has the necessary resources to conduct its business through the medium of the Welsh language where that is required. The development board has helped the development of the Welsh language and culture. We have supported a large number of Welsh language projects for learners including helping the Welsh Learners Council develop its community programme, S4C's acen project and the establishment of a Welsh language centre by Powys county council. Also, we have given substantial financial support to community, regional and national eisteddfods. By providing jobs and enhancing local facilities the development board aims to retain a greater number of Welsh youngsters in mid-Wales, thereby helping to ensure the continued viability of many Welsh-speaking communities.
Regarding the Secretary of State's expenditure under Section 26 of the Act I am afraid that the information is not readily available. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
I should say a little more about agriculture, which plays an important role. While the remit of the board does not cover that activity, the board seeks to build
624
other businesses to help ensure alternative employment for those who might previously have formed the agricultural workforce. I know that the board is intensifying and focusing its efforts to find ways of adding value to existing agricultural production and to funding alternative work. That is particularly important since one in four jobs on the western side of the board's area is agriculture related. There is an armoury of loan and grant schemes for private enterprise, varying from the mid-Wales development grant to the recently re-introduced development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise scheme as well as the rural building conversion grant schemes. All help to stimulate private sector involvement in job creation.
During 1989 and 1990 the board has been determined to acquire new land for the construction of factory and village workshops. In total some 30 acres have been acquired for individual development in the last financial year and £1.2 million has been set aside for the acquisition of more sites. There are many more activities in which the board is peripherally involved from an agricultural point of view, and the figure relating to rural activities is high.
The new financial limit which the Bill sets out will provide the Development Board for Rural Wales with the headroom it needs to pursue its tasks in the years ahead. I wish your Lordships nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda and express the hope that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1990
6.24 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in accordance with Section 67(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, may from time to time revise any codes of practice which are issued under that Act.
The existing first four codes of practice regulate in detail the exercise by the police of their powers of stop and search; the search of premises and the seizure of property; the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects; and the identification of persons by the police. They came into force on 1st January 1986. They were then a major innovation. No one had previously tried to draw up such comprehensive codes and they have proved a resounding success. I think that it is fair to say that the police now welcome them as giving them firm and clear parameters within which to operate.
When Parliament first introduced the codes, it promised that there should be a review after they had been in practice for sufficient time to see where improvements are needed. The review process has

625
been a complex one and has involved a double round of consultation with professionals and the public. The review has been in progress for nearly three years and we have received comments and proposals from a very wide range of groups and organisations, including those representing the police, the legal profession, civil liberties interests, and community groups. We have paid close attention to what they have said and we have taken their views into account wherever possible when preparing the final draft which is now before your Lordships.
We have tried, as far as possible, to reconcile the different views which inevitably have been expressed. We have also tried to ensure that the codes of practice represent a reasonable balance which gives the police the powers which they need to deal with crime, but which also provides workable and effective safeguards for the citizen who comes into contact with the police.
I should like to say something about each code in turn in order to highlight the main changes which are being proposed.
Regarding Code A, which deals with police powers to stop and search in the streets, the review showed that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the guidance on the "reasonable suspicion" which is needed before the power to stop and search may be exercised. We have attempted to shorten and to simplify the guidance so as to make it easier to understand and to apply, while retaining the safeguards against stopping people on the basis of racial and stereotyped images.
As regards Code B, covering the searching of premises and the seizure of evidence, the responses which we received suggest that it has been operating well. However, there is a general recognition within the police service that everything possible should be done to advise an occupier, whose premises are being searched, of his rights.
With that in mind, the revised code contains one important new provision, at paragraph 5.7, requiring the police to give the occupier of the premises to be searched a notice of powers and rights. It will explain whether the search is carried out under a warrant or in the exercise of statutory powers, and it will set out the rights of the occupier in relation to the search. The notice does not replace the search warrant where one is required.
Code C, covering the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers, has received easily the greatest amount of attention during the review. Major changes are proposed relating to access to legal advice and to the recording and verification of what is said in interviews and elsewhere.
Research which was carried out by the Home Office in 1987 found that, despite the virtually unrestricted access to legal advice under the Act, only around 20 per cent. of suspects requested legal advice. The reasons for that low uptake have been the subject of further research, which was published at the end of last year. Well over 5,000 cases were considered. The findings made it clear that most officers try to ensure that suspects get legal advice when they want it.
626
However, it also appeared that other officers did not always act promptly in response to requests for legal advice, and that some of them might even have discouraged suspects from making such requests.
The study makes the point that advice tends to be sought in more serious cases. However, suspects in minor cases may also need help especially those who have been in little or no trouble before; who have no experience of police stations or investigative techniques; who are completely ignorant of their rights; and juveniles who may be most easily put off because of their anxiety to get out of custody as quickly as possible.
We were very concerned about those difficulties with access to legal advice, and all parties to our discussions—most notably the police themselves—have shown a very constructive approach to seeking ways to improve the position.
The draft revised Code C, which is before your Lordships, contains the following important changes. The emphasis is that the custody officer should inform a detained person clearly of his basic rights and should advise him that they are continuing rights which may be exercised at any time while he remains in custody. The code requires the custody officer to state that the right is to free legal advice. It places greater emphasis on the need to provide information in translation to non-English speakers. It requires posters advertising the right to free legal advice to be displayed in all charging areas. It requires that suspects should be reminded of their right to legal advice before any and every interview, any detention review, any identity parade or the provision of any intimate sample. It specifically states that no attempt should be made to dissuade a suspect from obtaining legal advice. Very importantly, it formally restricts the circumstances in which interviewing can take place away from the police station.
There are also significant changes which strengthen the existing provisions covering the recording and verification of interviews and other comments which may be made by suspects.
Under the revised code, in circumstances in which the interview is not tape recorded, the suspect will normally have an opportunity to read the record and sign it as correct, or to indicate the respects in which he considers it to be inaccurate. Also—and very importantly—a similar system will apply to comments which may be made outside an interview but which may be relevant to an offence. Those improved provisions for proper recording and verification should raise the quality of evidence and make it more comprehensive. Again, it is an insurance for both the suspect and the police officers.
There are other significant changes to Code C which are proposed in addition to the major amendments to which I already referred. At paragraph 3.2 we have introduced a requirement for detainees to be provided with a notice of entitlement. That is intended to detail the facilities which should be available to a detained person and which are over and above the statutory rights to which he is entitled and

627
which are set out in the main notice to detained persons. The notice of entitlement will be easy to read and cover such things as visits, contacts with outside parties, standards of physical comfort, adequate food and drink, access to toilets and washing facilities, clothing, medical attention and exercise.
We have also sought in Code C to improve the provisions relating to the disadvantaged—those who are mentally disordered, have hearing or speech impairments or who are visually handicapped.
In Code D we have reorganised the material into a more logical order but the major change has been to introduce a whole new block of material which makes provision for identifying suspects from a video film as opposed to the more traditional method of an identification parade. That is another means by which nervous witnesses can be spared the ordeal of coming face to face with the suspects.
If approved, the revised codes will come into force on 1st April 1991. Officers will receive training in advance of that date on the basis of a programme which is being devised centrally to cover the proposed changes. Further information and designs for the new forms which will be required will be included in a Home Office circular to the police which will be issued in the new year.
The implementation and increasing approval of the codes of practice have been one of the most encouraging developments within the criminal justice system in recent years. There has been no need for wholesale amendment. Certain key areas have had to be strengthened or tightened but the success of the body of the codes is a considerable tribute to all those who participated in the original drafting.
Properly applied, and allowing for the amendments which are being proposed, the codes will continue to make a substantial contribution to effective policing by consent, which is such a vital element in the successful relationship between the police and the public whom they serve. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps at the outset I may say that I echo the words of the noble Earl at the end of his speech. These amendments are important and the codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are crucial in terms of the relationship between the police and the general public. We welcome the improvements to the codes of conduct so far as they go.
I should like to put one or two detailed questions to the Minister, mainly in respect of Code C. I also want to raise with him two points on interpreters: one point in relation to deaf people and the other in relation to people who do not speak English.
First, when one looks at the amendments and the earlier draft codes, some of the differences between the two do not seem to improve the position of the suspect. On the contrary, they make his position
628
somewhat more difficult. To take one difference that has certainly struck me, under the earlier draft code the superintendent's written authorisation was required before interviews could proceed with two groups of suspects: those who had indicated that they did not want legal advice, and those whose chosen solicitor was unable or unwilling to attend and who did not want or could not obtain the services of a duty solicitor. Under the old code, such suspects also had to confirm in writing or on tape that they agreed to be interviewed without taking legal advice.
Now no authorisation is needed for interviews with those who declined legal advice in the first place. Neither would it be necessary to have their agreement to be interviewed without seeing a solicitor. Authorisation is needed for interviews with suspects who are unable to reach their solicitors; and for those who change their mind about taking legal advice the suspect's agreement must also be obtained. But it will no longer be necessary to obtain authority from the superintendent. Inspectors can now give the go-ahead which only needs to be given orally.
I must tell the Minister that those changes worry me on several grounds. First, it is known that some suspects choose not to consult a solicitor because they consider that it is neither useful nor important to do so. The need for a superintendent's authority helped to emphasise the seriousness of being interviewed without legal advice, as did the requirement that the suspect's agreement to the interview be recorded. It also gave suspects another chance to consider their decision not to obtain legal advice.
Allowing inspectors rather than solicitors to authorise interviews where there has been no legal advice is somewhat worrying. I understand that the Home Office justifies the change on the grounds that an officer at inspector level is better placed than a superintendent to satisfy himself both of a suspect's wishes and whether the custody officer has followed those wishes in trying to obtain a solicitor when asked for one. The Minister may well know that the Law Society at least is not convinced by those arguments. Mr. Stephen Ridley of the Law Society is quoted as saying:
"The detached, reasoned judgment of a senior officer is needed. It is an important decision and should not be taken lightly. Most stations have access to a superintendent".
Why should the requirement not remain at superintendent rather than inspector level?
There are some other potentially significant changes in the new codes. I do not understand one of them at all. Under the new codes suspects who undergo intimate searches, as the noble Earl said, will not be reminded of their right to free legal advice. In virtually all other circumstances, including the taking of intimate samples, the reminder is to be given. For the life of me I do not understand the logical distinction between reminding somebody of his right to free legal advice when taking an intimate sample from him and not doing so when conducting an intimate search. I should like to know its justification.
Secondly, the right to notify other people in writing or by telephone of an arrest can now be delayed for a

629
much larger number of suspects than is the case under the old codes. Under the present codes that key right can be delayed only by a superintendent and only for those suspected of terrorist or serious arrestable offences. The revised codes provide that on an inspector's authority it can also be delayed for those detained for arrestable offences. I again do not see the justification for the change. I welcome the Minister's views on it.
Thirdly—it is a matter of detail but an important one—in the earlier drafts those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 could not be questioned about an alleged offence or asked to make a statement. That directive seems to have been dropped despite the fact that the rights of mentally ill people have perhaps been strengthened by some of the other provisions in the code. These are points of detail. Nevertheless, they are important and significant. I welcome the Minister's views on them.
Perhaps I may raise two other matters regarding interpretation. First, how will a deaf person be dealt with? Secondly, how will a person who does not speak the English language be dealt with?
As I am sure the Minister knows, the British Deaf Association is one of the organisations which participated in the consultative processes beginning in 1982 which led to the Act and the codes of practice. It is anxious about three major matters. First, is a police officer the person who should be called upon to act as an interpreter when a police officer is interviewing a suspect who happens to be deaf? I believe that at the moment he would not be entitled to do so. Under the new codes, as I understand it, he would.
The British Deaf Association takes the view that the codes rightly imply an expectation of objectivity and separation of roles. It is therefore an unacceptable contradiction not to apply the same expectation to the police in relation to the role of interpreter as the codes apply to the police in precluding them from acting as the appropriate adult.
Secondly, who calls an interpreter in relation to a deaf person? At the moment an interpreter for a deaf person would be called by a custody officer. In deciding not to call an interpreter that officer might innocently but erroneously assume that an interpreter was not needed. I believe that there should be provision for an interpreter to be provided for a deaf suspect in circumstances in which there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is deaf and may not be able to understand what is going on.
Thirdly, when should someone who is deaf waive the right to an interpreter? Again, the codes are silent on that. It is a danger—I do not for a moment say that many people will fall into that category—that I hope the Government will take into account.
The other point on interpretation arises in detail on Guidance Note 3D, which is referred to in paragraph 13.1 of Code C. It relates to the provision of an interpreter for someone who does not speak English. The guidance note states that the local community relations council may be able to provide information about interpreters with the necessary skills and
630
experience in cases where the person concerned does not understand English. That seems to me to be a nonsense. The community relations council is not qualified to provide the interpreter. I remind the Government of what the Court of Appeal said recently in the case of Kavizinski. It emphasised, as perhaps has been rarely emphasised with such force and clarity, the necessity for a person who finds himself or herself involved in the criminal justice system to understand what is going on.
I am sure that the Government know that in Cambridge, under the auspices of the Institute of Linguists and supported by the Nuffield Foundation, a model has been developed to meet the need when public services, in particular the police, have to deal with someone who does not speak English adequately. The Cambridgeshire constabulary has worked closely with the Institute of Linguists over the years in that regard. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail. I merely point out to the Government that those who are more expert than I am in this field—and I suspect more expert than most—take the view that the practice direction—Guidance Note 3D—is inadequate, does not make sense and could land police forces in a great deal of trouble if they operated in the way suggested.
The difficulty about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of conduct is the relationship between breaches of a code and the admissibility of evidence. The Government know that the decision on admissibility under Section 78 of the Act is very much left to the discretion of the trial judge. Therefore in some cases—it has happened very frequently to those of us who practise in criminal courts—one may have a series of breaches of the code and one may then have an argument that, despite the breaches of the code, the evidence obtained by interview which should not have taken place in that way, or an identification which was not in accordance with the code, should be admissible in evidence.
I do not say that every breach of a code should result in the inadmissibility of the evidence which was obtained as a result. However, one now has the stage when prosecuting counsel quite often will concede the breach and rely on the judge's discretion in order to get the evidence in. I do not suggest that the Government amend Section 78 of the PACE Act. However, the House might welcome some indication from the Government as to whether or not they consider that the balance between breaches of the code and the admissibility of the evidence is being preserved in the way that the PACE Act intended.
Are the Government satisfied that police officers and police authorities—I pick my words very carefully indeed - are as righteous in their application of the codes of conduct under the PACE Act as they would be if they knew that the retribution of a decision of inadmissibility of evidence obtained under the breach of code would result in more evidence being excluded than was included? In other words, are the Government satisfied that Section 78 of the PACE Act in its relationship to breaches of the code is working properly? I refer to the old or the new codes.

631
Apart from those points, we on this side of the House welcome the attempts by the Government with the new codes of practice to deal with some of the preoccupations that were being expressed in a quite lively way in some instances in relation to the old codes.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for the first time since he assumed responsibilities for the Home Office for the Opposition. I say that for two reasons. First, he has a substantial reputation at the criminal Bar. Secondly, I can testify to his qualities as an advocate since on one occasion I had the good fortune to be represented by him in court over a slight problem in relation to the Road Traffic Act. I am glad to say that we both emerged from the court with our reputations unimpaired.
I wish to repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard; namely, that I believe the order is wholly desirable. It certainly carries our support. However, bearing in mind the debates that we have had, not only at the time of the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but subsequent to it, such an order also indicates the desirability of having serious inquiry before proceeding to legislation.
One can compare the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with other legislation over the past few years. That Act has worked rather well. It was said by some at the time—rather foolishly, in my view—that the Act should be repealed. That proposition has now been dropped. By and large it is accepted by all that a major improvement has been carried through as a result of the passage of this legislation.
The legislation has worked because it was preceded by a widely-based Royal Commission consisting of lawyers, serving and retired police officers and people from outside the criminal justice system. The legislation was determined as a result of careful inquiry. It was vigorously debated in Parliament and is now on the statute book. It has by and large received substantial public acceptance. One can compare it with other legislation in respect of which no such inquiry took place and as a consequence serious damage was caused.
The questions that I wish to raise are different from those put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, I wish to deal with the issue of tape recordings made at police stations. In my view they have been introduced far too slowly. Can the Minister indicate whether the process has been completed? Are there now tape recording facilities in all police stations? If not, when will there be tape recording facilities in every police station in England and Wales? It is deplorable that it has taken so long to introduce this facility and I would like the Minister's reassurance that the process has, or will soon, come to a conclusion.
I now turn to the issue of video recordings. The Minister may be aware that at present two experiments are taking place; one in the West
632
Midlands and the other, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, at Edmonton. I would like to know the Government's attitude. Do the Government now consider it desirable to extend such provision to police stations in other parts of the country? It is an important question. When one talks to American criminal lawyers and to the heads of American police forces one notes the extent to which the American criminal justice system now relies on video recordings. It is made clear by lawyers who generally represent criminal defendants and those involved in prosecution policy that the interests of the accused and the prosecution are served by this system. What is the position of the Home Office? Is it prepared to contemplate a wider introduction of the scheme?
The issue of the mentally ill is raised in Annexe E. The noble Earl will recall that we have debated the subject on a number of occasions. I am sure that he is aware that many more mentally ill people are coming into police custody. The reason is the failure of the Government's mental health programme. We are all aware that thousands of people now leave mental hospitals without adequate resources having been made available in the community to look after them. As a result police officers in any major city will speak of the substantial number of people who come into their custody and who have a background of mental illness.
That being so I wish to ask the Minister two particular questions. The first issue is dealt with in the order. There it is made clear that if a person in custody appears to be suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap there is an obligation on the police to try to obtain the attendance of a relative or a guardian. Alternatively, if the police cannot find a relative—and often that is impossible—someone with experience of dealing with mentally disordered people can be asked to go to the police station to assist. Indeed, that is a requirement. However, a third category is also dealt with in the order, and it is about that that I would like to question the noble Earl. The order states that a "responsible adult" can be asked to go to the police station to assist the person who has been taken into custody. The obligations on that responsible adult are substantial. Paragraph 9 of the code provides that where the appropriate adult is present at an interview he should be informed that he is not expected to act simply as an observer; and that the purposes of his presence are, first, to advise the person being interviewed and to observe whether or not the interview is being conducted properly and fairly, and, secondly, to facilitate communication with the person being interviewed.
Is any guidance being given to the police on what constitutes a responsible adult? Given the fact that substantial obligations are being put upon that responsible adult, has there been any discussion between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers as to the type of person who constitutes a responsible adult? The issues raised can be highly sensitive. I should be grateful for any indication that the noble Earl can give.

633
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the question of what happens when the mentally ill person is a Home Office remand prisoner. During the past year or two the numbers have fluctuated between the high hundreds and up to 2,000. The Minister will recall from our previous debates on the subject that a number of mentally ill people have been held in police stations many hundreds of miles away from where they were arrested. What is the obligation on the custody sergeant in a police station? Does he have any obligations? If he believes that the person concerned may be disturbed, is he required to obtain someone with experience in dealing with the mentally ill? Does he have an obligation to call a doctor to the police station? The issue may lie outside the order; nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Earl could outline the obligations on the officer in charge of the police station when he believes that the person brought into his custody has substantial mental health problems.
Subject to the questions that I have asked, we on these Benches are content with the order.
7 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, one of the consequences of the production in 1985 of the four codes of practice that we are now discussing was the phasing out of the judges' rules. That was a set of legal principles which for some 73 years covered the police interrogation of persons suspected of crime and the taking of statements from them. It is interesting to note that they appear to have been initiated originally by the police. With the rules' attendant administrative directions they ran to some five and a half pages and individual police officers were expected to know them almost by heart.
Therefore, your Lordships may not find it surprising to note that when the new codes of practice appeared, admittedly covering a wider field, the police viewed their 92 pages of mixed statutory provisions, practice directions and ethical advice with some degree of caution and a large measure of apprehension. In particular they were worried about the resource implications involved in mounting a programme to train some 120,000 individual police officers in the new procedures, a requirement which must now be repeated, as the noble Earl rightly indicated.
They were anxious about the manpower implications of creating posts of custody officer, generally of the rank of sergeant, at the majority of police stations. They were anxious about the implications of the new proposals to have interviews tape recorded and that the slightest breach of those detailed and often complicated rules might lead to an officer being liable to disciplinary proceedings and possible dismissal from the force.
I believe that the police responded very well to those challenges. Indeed, it may be thought that the comparatively few changes of any real substance made in the revised codes are some measure of that. Certainly my information is that the police have come
634
to terms with the new situation and that the expected problems have now been largely, if not entirely, resolved.
I believe that there has been real progress in the past five years. The questioning of suspects is now conducted in ways which are quite different from those which existed before the introduction of the codes. Independent research studies clearly show that that is so.
It is a great pity that the public's perception of the situation is so clouded by the reports of, for example, the Guildford case of some 16 years ago. I do not believe that the problems which have arisen in that case could be repeated today. The future introduction of video interviewing as an extension of tape recording, which is now being introduced, will make that even more impossible.
As to the changes which the Minister outlined to us, I believe that the new and extended provisions should be generally acceptable not only to the police but also to all other parties involved. The amendments made in respect of the mentally disordered, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, are extremely important. I share his view that we shall find many more of those unfortunate people in police stations in future if only as a result of their being taken there as a place of safety under the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
Welcome, too, are the amendments relating to entitlement to legal advice. Apart from strengthening the right of suspects to such assistance, the changes are also helpful to the police by defining more clearly their relationship with defence solicitors and the latter's proper role.
The new provisions—namely, that arrested persons may only be interviewed in the controlled situation of a police station and which outlaw what have been come to be known as car seat confessions—may seem unduly restrictive to some. But that is balanced by the equally new provision that unsolicited comments made elsewhere may rightly be recorded and admitted in evidence.
That is not to say that there are not still some areas of difficulty; for example, the requirement that senior officers must give written consent to certain actions, such as the searching of premises occupied or controlled by a person arrested for an arrestable offence. In my view, that pays insufficient regard to the immediate availability of such officers, particularly in some more rural areas of the country.
It may be felt also that the provision that a person's consent to a search of premises may be withdrawn before it is concluded—probably just before the stolen goods are discovered—may well cause problems.
In his speech the noble Earl drew attention to the administrative burdens which the codes have imposed particularly on custody officers. It should be clearly recognised that in busy stations difficulty is already experienced in keeping up to date the detailed records currently required in respect of the handling and interviewing of prisoners. I am afraid that the amendments will only add to those difficulties.

635
The amendments also do nothing to resolve the doubts which the police have as to the interview techniques which officers may use without being accused later of being unfair or oppressive. While the code clearly indicates that a person's declaration that he is unwilling to reply to questions does not affect an officer's right to continue to ask them, there is some evidence that what has been described as "persuasive questioning" as opposed to what may be called "information seeking" is felt to be out of order. Consequently, interrogators are becoming unskilled and new recruits to the CID are not learning those techniques which, rightly or wrongly, are thought to be suspect. I hope that the Minister may be able to help us later on that point.
I have never believed that acceptable standards of conduct, such as fairness to suspects, can be achieved simply by demanding them and providing for penalties when they are not realised, whether that be through a disciplinary code or refusal to admit evidence. Proper ethical standards of policing cannot be achieved and recognised as such unless they are clearly part of every officer's way of life. I believe that the police service also recognises that, as is evidenced by the statement of common purpose and values recently produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and to which I know the other police representative bodies also subscribe.
In furtherance of that, with the help of academic advisers, members of the legal profession and others, as your Lordships may have seen in the press today, the police are actively seeking to improve and standardise the training given to police officers in the interviewing of suspects and others and to build into that the development of proper moral values. That will be successful only if a similar approach permeates all other police training. Corporate philosophies such as ACPO's statement of common purpose are of little use unless translated into individual practice which is not easy to achieve. However, the will to do that is there, and it is in the interests of the police, quite as much in the interests of justice and the public, that they should succeed in doing so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken and for the welcome which they have given to these codes. I was particularly grateful for the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He brings to these debates the experience and wisdom of those who have been involved and are involved in the police service. His concluding remarks were right. He said that justice cannot be achieved for suspects merely by altering the wording or demanding that they should have justice. It must be part of a way of life. However, we must try to provide the codes so that when inculcated into the life of a police officer, he will be able to conduct himself correctly and in such a way that is fair and right for the suspect. I am the first to recognise that that is not an easy job, and that that requires training. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that will be time consuming. It is time consuming. People then ask why there are not more policemen on the streets.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not say that at all. I welcome training, and indeed I believe it to be essential.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord said that police officers had been trained on the first set of codes, and would now have to be retrained. If I am wrong, then I apologise. Police officers will have to be retrained, and that takes up rather a lot of time. I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who said it. I apologise to the noble Lord. I should not have put such fearful thoughts into the mind of the noble Lord, but had he heard the noble Lord, Lord Knights, first, he would have quite agreed with him. It is true to say that 120,000 officers had to be trained and that they may have to be retrained. That is important if justice is to be correctly applied to suspects.
Your Lordships asked a number of questions. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in saying how delighted we on this side of the House are to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, taking on responsibility for Home Office matters. I say that we are delighted in a personal capacity. We are delighted because he has the advantage of being trained in the law. Therefore, he will start off with a singular advantage over me, which I find a disturbing thought. Other than that fact, I welcome him enormously.
The noble Lord was concerned about the authority of superintendents. Their responsibility is now that of inspectors. Superintendents are not available at police stations at all times and inspectors are usually in operational control of police stations. They are the best people to give authority quickly. It would not be practical for a superintendent's authority to be required in every case. One must remember that an inspector is a senior police officer who is in day-to-day charge of a police station. If we can trust him to run a station properly I hope that we can trust him correctly to exercise discretion over such matters.
The noble Lord was concerned that people were not notified of their legal rights in relation to intimate searches but that they were when samples were taken. I agree that superficially that is a curious position, but there are often urgent and immediate requirements for intimate searches. It is not always possible to obtain legal advice at that stage. There is usually a delay before intimate samples are taken and therefore there is an opportunity to remind people about obtaining legal advice.
The noble Lord referred to police officers being interpreters for the deaf. I do not think that police officers could not be objective interpreters. Some deaf people can communicate quite well in writing and can lip read. It might unnecessarily extend their time in custody if an interpreter was always required to be present. Clearly, there will be occasions when interpreters will be required but it is not unreasonable to think that police officers could be impartial interpreters.
Concern was expressed also about the delay in notification for arrestable offences as well as for

637
offences of terrorism. Some offences short of terrorism—for example, armed robbery—are very serious indeed. They may involve many people and there is a possibility of disposal of evidence. There is no requirement to consult community relations councils about interpreters. It is a matter for the police. In some circumstances they may find that community relations councils are very useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about the balance of inadmissibility of evidence and the breach of codes. We have found that generally courts have proved quite tough over that matter. Evidence is excluded when to allow it would be unfair. The court must look at the whole case. The Government are satisfied with Section 78 of PACE. Police officers are subject to disciplinary procedures for breaches of codes and therefore there is a double weapon against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about tape recording. That system will be fully operational by the end of 1991. Approximately half the forces in England and Wales have applied the system generally and the others are conducting some kind of recording. Implementation continues to go ahead quickly.
The noble Lord referred to video recordings and asked what progress was being made in that regard. As he knows, video recording experiments are being conducted. We hope that they will demonstrate whether or not they are sufficiently valuable for wider introduction. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, stated that such recordings have been found to be very valuable in the USA. I am sure that they have. We are trying to find out whether in the circumstances that we have spoken of they will be equally valuable here and how best they could be applied, if they are applied. In some ways the experiments are a cost-benefit exercise. The noble Lord asked when they would be used all over the country. I cannot answer that. It is a difficult issue and we shall not commit ourselves until we know that there will be a return on the additional money. It would mean more skilled interviewing, more guilty pleas, more training, and so forth. We will see how the experiments work out.
The noble Lord was concerned about mentally ill suspects. I agree that large numbers of mentally ill people end up in police custody and it is a matter of considerable concern to everybody that that should be the case. We do not offer guidance to the police as to what is a responsible adult. We realise that they have to play a significant role but we look to all parents and friends and professionals to help as best they can. The police are not in a position to judge how good a responsible adult is and who would or would not be classified as a responsible adult. If they are in doubt, the police should seek to ensure that a solicitor is present.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed concern about remand prisoners. Such prisoners are not held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and therefore the role of the custody officer is not the same. He will be anxious to get a mentally ill person into hospital if he possibly can. The
638
noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated that mentally ill people used not to be questioned but that now they can be questioned. I think that there may be a misunderstanding in regard to that matter. We never debarred the questioning of mentally disordered persons. However, the safeguards are strong; for example, the requirement for an appropriate adult. Those taken to a police station as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 will not normally be questioned about any offence, as is clear from the code.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to ethical interviewing. It is essential that police officers have the skills and confidence to interview suspects properly. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers has recently set up a working party to see whether guidance can be given. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the very important work it is doing.
The noble Lord also referred to senior officers giving consent to searches of premises which are controlled by an arrested person. The authority of an inspector is required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Without amending that Act we cannot do anything about the matter. It is a point that we shall note for future consideration, without committing the Government one way or another.
As regards withdrawal of consent to search, I agree that it is inconvenient if a person suddenly refuses consent after first agreeing. I cannot see how one can stop that happening or pretend that consent exists if it does not exist.
I accept that the codes are complicated. They are lengthy and detailed. I know that anxiety existed at the outset as to how the police would be able to work them. It was thought that they would be intrusive to policing. I am glad to say—the noble Lord, Lord Knights, confirmed this—that that view has changed. On the whole, police officers are now content with the codes despite the fact that they are fairly stringent. The codes enable them to know the parameters within which they can work without being told that they have acted incorrectly.
I am grateful to noble Lords for welcoming these codes. I hope that the codes will prove another step forward in the successful operation of policing in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1990
7.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to add three substances to the list of substances which are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They are N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine, 4-Methyl-Am inorex and Midazolam. The order is necessary in order to enable

639
the United Kingdom to comply with a decision, taken last January, to bring these three substances under the control of the 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic substances. As a party to that convention we in the United Kingdom are obliged to take corresponding measures to bring the drugs under the control of our own domestic legislation. I cannot profess to be a pharmacologist and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be kind enough not to press me to explain the composition of the drugs in too much detail, nor to ask me to keep repeating their names.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will repeat his speech.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is most encouraging in asking me to repeat the speech; perhaps I shall do so.
I take the simplest-sounding drug first. Midazolam is used in hospitals as a pre-operative sedative. It is marketed in the United Kingdom under the proprietary name of Hypnovel. It is one of the group of drugs known as the benzodiazepines, 33 of which are already controlled under the misuse of drugs legislation.
As far as we know, the drug is not currently being misused in this country. But according to the World Health Organisation, whose experts advise the United Nations on questions of drug scheduling, abuse of midazolam is reported in several countries. There is also evidence in a number of countries of illicit trafficking and diversion of it for nefarious purposes.
The other two drugs have stimulant properties which are similar to the amphetamine group of drugs, but neither is used for clinical or therapeutic purposes. According to the World Health Organisation's experts N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine—which is also known as N-Hydroxy MDA—has been identified in illicit traffic in both the USA and Europe, and clandestine production has been reported.
With regard to 4-Methyl-Aminorex, the World Health Organisation said that although no epidemiological data of actual abuse is available there have been individual case reports and at least one death has been reported. There is evidence of illicit traffic and clandestine production in the United States of America. We can be thankful that there is no evidence that these substances are currently being misused in the United Kingdom. By scheduling them now, in accordance with our treaty obligations, we can hope that this will prevent any abuse in the future.
In accordance with statutory requirements the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted about the proposals to bring these
640
substances under control. The council is content that all three substances should be made subject to control. The order proposes that N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine and 4-Methyl-Aminorex should be added to the list of controlled drugs which are specified in Class A of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. The effect will be that the unlawful possession and supply of these drugs will become punishable on indictment by maximum penalties of seven years and life imprisonment respectively or an unlimited fine, or both.
Midazolam would be added to the list of drugs which are specified in Class C of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This is the lowest tier of classification and its effect will be that the unlawful possession and supply of the drugs will become punishable on indictment by maximum penalties of two years and five years' imprisonment respectively or an unlimited fine, or both.
If the order is approved my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will submit amendment regulations which will bring all three drugs under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. In broad terms, these controls will be similar to those which apply to other drugs which have the same potential for abuse. The regulatory proposals, which have been recommended by the advisory council, will comply with the obligations of the United Nations convention. My right honourable friend has consulted the organisations which represent the medical professions and the pharmaceutical industry and I am glad to say that the proposals have their support.
Despite the fact that the substances mentioned in the order are practically beyond both the comprehension and articulation by the layman, I believe that your Lordships will find the order and its contents uncontroversial. If the order is approved it is my right honourable friend's aim to bring it and the relevant amendment regulations into force in February of next year. I commend the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have only two comments to make. First, I thank the noble Earl for his kind words about me when speaking on the previous order. Secondly, I congratulate him and express my admiration of the skill with which he threaded his way through the medical dictionary. He will be happy to hear that I have nothing to say on the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.