Sitting of 22 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered ; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Nurses' Pay
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many times he met the organisations representing the nursing profession to resolve the dispute over the salaries for regional and area nursing officers ; which organisations were present ; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I saw representatives of the Staff Side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council three times during the course of these negotiations, including one occasion when a deputation was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Staff Side membership covers 12 organisations and was represented by its chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. Following these meetings, discussions were resumed between the two sides of the council and I have subsequently been able to approve an improvement on the provisional salaries previously announced.
    Mr. Pavitt: How significant was the Prime Minister's intervention in this matter? As the Secretary of State's first pay decision was made under his NHS powers and he made that decision against the wishes of the Nurses Council, will he now be making a similar kind of promulgation? Is he aware that if he does so, although the Nurses Council will acquiesce it will not accept that as being the final word, as injustice will still exist, and
    1418
    will wish to continue negotiations even if he promulgates this fresh decision which, thank goodness, is likely to be a little more favourable than his first decision?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend's interest was great and his intervention was effective. I have been requested by both Management Side and the Staff Side to apply the revised salaries, although the Staff Side has made it abundantly clear, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that it does not accept them for the continuing future but awaits the review promised for 1975.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as Vice-President of the Royal College of Nursing, I am fully behind the nurses, as I believe he is? May I ask him to remember that if he wants any help with the Treasury, I am the woman?
    Sir K. Joseph: I continually frighten the Treasury with my hon. Friends displeasure if we do not achieve the results that we both want.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some holders of ancillary posts in the hospital service who may not be properly remunerated but who nevertheless receive more in salary than nurses who have extra responsibility? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that situation to see how it can be rectified?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but the Question is on the subject of the top administrative nursing posts.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total salary increase under phase 3 for a third-year student nurse, a newly qualified staff nurse, and a sister, respectively, within the National Health Service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): This is a matter for consideration by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House is getting sick and tired of that kind of answer? Does not he recognise that whatever the increase

    1419
    is it will be considerably less than the forecast increase in the cost of living over the next 12 months, which is commonly recognised to be in the region of 15 per cent.? To reduce the standard of living of the most dedicated public servants in the country is an outrage which should be put right by the Government forthwith.
    Mr. Alison: I cannot comment on the substance of what may emerge from the negotiations about to be set in train. If the hon. Gentleman is sick and tired of my answers, I can only tell him that so long as the Whitley Councils continue in existence, inevitably such answers will continue to follow the hon. Gentleman's questions.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are some fully-trained nurses and ward sisters who, after deductions, earn only 60p an hour and that this traditional exploitation of nurses is one factor in causing the serious shortage? If the Government claim to be helping the low paid, they cannot contract out of helping the nurses by shifting the responsibility to the Whitley Council.
    Mr. Alison: I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Lady, if it has substance, will be presented to the Whitley Council by the Staff Side.
    The House must be encouraged by the substantial increase over recent years in the numbers of nurses, particularly in long-stay hospitals.

    National Health Service Reorganisation
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with representatives of NALGO concerning the transfer of staff from the local government health service to the National Health Service ; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) on 14th December—[Vol. 866, c. 221–2.] I am sending him a copy of my letter of 10th December to NALGO. Consultations with the Staff Side are continuing as necessary.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable alarm and despondency among local government health service workers regarding their future career and employment prospects? Is there anything else that he can say at this stage to alleviate their fears?
    Sir K. Joseph: I respect the hon. Gentleman's judgment. I do not know how recently he has canvassed opinion, but only this month we sent out the latest circular on the protection of employment, which was prepared after long consultation with NALGO and which will, I think, ease the minds of many of the people of whom the hon. Gentleman is thinking.
    Mr. Conlan: Is the Minister aware that in Gateshead the liaison committee set up to consult the staff about the reorganisation has not yet even met, and that many members of local authority health services are so worried about the lack of consultation on salaries and conditions of service that they are applying for and obtaining positions in other sections of local government? Therefore, this side of the health service may be sadly depleted in staff from 1st April.
    Sir K. Joseph: That was, indeed, a fear, but I hope that it has been reduced by the circular issued earlier this month, to which I have referred, and by the promulgation, also this month, of the second-in-line post salaries, which will, I think, show many of the local authority health staff what prospects there are in the reorganised health service.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give an assurance to the House that by 1st April all the posts will be filled, particularly those of area administrative financial officers, medical officers and district community physicians? These are key posts on which the reorganised National Health Service must rely if it is to work efficiently and successfully.
    Sir K. Joseph: I fully expect that full teams of officers at regional, area and district level will have been appointed by mid-March.
    Miss Quennell: As my right hon. Friend has so recently sent out a circular, will he consider, as a courtesy, letting me have a copy of it?
    Sir K. Joseph: Most certainly.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with NALGO since 17th December on the reorganisation of the NHS.
    Sir K. Joseph: There have been no specific discussions, apart from those taking place in the Whitley Councils on remuneration and other matters, since 17th December, but I am considering comments by a number of staff organisations, including NALGO, on a consultation paper about appeals issued on 30th November.
    Mrs. Short: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should have consulted NALGO right at the beginning of the reorganisation of the National Health Service? He had not done so by 17th December, and I have received a number of representations from NALGO branches, including my own, expressing concern about appointments. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that NALGO is in such a ferment that there are proposals for strike action, so concerned are its members about the situation in many parts of the country? Should not the Minister get together with NALGO immediately and discuss the matters outstanding?
    Sir K. Joseph: I should like publicly to pay tribute—[Interruption.]—I hope the hon. Lady will have the courtesy to listen to my answer.
    Mrs. Short: I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir K. Joseph: I should like to pay tribute publicly to the continuous and constructive co-operation that the Government have had from NALGO in the consultations on reorganisation, which have been going on for a very long time. It is true that there are some outstanding matters, particularly appeals. It is true that NALGO is not totally satisfied, but it has been very effective in the consultation and has achieved—and perhaps this is associated with the time involved—a great number of improvements for its members.

    Abortion
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is
    1422
    now able to publish the Lane Committee's Report.
    Sir K. Joseph: The committee's report has been received and it is hoped to publish it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Steel: When publishing the report does the Secretary of State intend to publish simultaneously the Government's views on what action should be taken on the report, or does he intend that there should be a time lag between the two?
    Sir K. Joseph: We are studying the report, but it was received by us literally only a few days ago and I cannot commit myself to an immediate response. As the House is aware, a Private Members' Bill will come forward next month.
    Mr. Redmond: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep and sincere feeling about the present position on abortion held by a wide cross-section of the community? Is he aware of the demand for legislation and action rather than merely waiting for a report? Will he give us an assurance that the Government will do nothing to hinder the Private Member's Bill?
    Sir K. Joseph: I must reserve my position on the Private Member's Bill until we have studied the report for which the House and the country have been waitng. It is true that there are strong and sincere opinions, but they are, unfortunately, conflicting opinions.
    Mr. William Hamilton: If the Private Member's Bill measures up to the recommendations of the Lane Committee and fulfils those recommendations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will support it in the House?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman puts his question very reasonably, but I must ask the House to await the publication of the report.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the Question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and his very proper interest in the Lane Report indicate that he recognises the dire consequences of his legislation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend will be eager to read the Lane Report with its thorough assessment of all the implications.

    Maintenance Awards (Non-Payment)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, before he receives the report of the Finer Committee on one-parent families, he will introduce interim measures to help women who have been awarded alimony by court order and are unable to obtain such an amount.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): As the difficulties encountered by women through the non-payment of maintenance awarded by the courts are within the terms of reference of the Finer Committee, it would not be right to anticipate its conclusions. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive its report within the next few weeks, and consideration of its recommendations will begin straight away.
    Mr. Dalyell: As, on the initiative of the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and I went in the spring to see Morris Finer, the chairman of the committee, I know some of the difficulties. Unless immediate action is taken, cannot this problem be extracted from the rest of Finer, as the woman who has not been given all her alimony, and her lawyer, are at a hopeless disadvantage?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the trouble he has taken in discussing this matter with Mr. Finer, but he will recognise that this is part of a much wider problem. Under the existing arrangements we try to ensure that women at most risk, namely, those who are entitled to supplementary benefit, receive a regular income, whether or not their maintenance is actually paid.
    Mr. Worsley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is tragic that this report has been so long delayed, in view of its extreme importance? Will he give the House an assurance, first, that publication will be expedited and, secondly, that action upon the report will be expedited?
    Mr. Dean: I assure my hon. Friend that the report should be received by my right hon. Friend very shortly and that it will be published as quickly as possible. To be fair to the committee, which was set up at the end of 1969, it had very wide terms of reference and a good
    1424
    deal of research was required, because much of the information it needed to formulate its report was not available.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
    Mr. Alison: So far as the Act relates to matters within the responsibility of my Department, we are satisfied that local authorities are generally making good progress with its implementation, bearing in mind inevitable resource constraints.
    Mr. Molloy: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best to see that this first-class Act is implemented properly, but is he aware that some local authorities are laggards, with no sense of responsibility or compassion? Will the hon. Gentleman chase up those authorities and also consider holding a conference of voluntary organisations and local authorities to see what can be done to put pressure on local authorities which are not answering the call of the Act in the way they should?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should furnish the House with specific details of individual authorities which are falling short. He will recall that Parliament placed the implementation of the Act squarely upon the shoulders of local government, and there are local electors who can visit upon those laggard authorities the proper judgment.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is it not time that my hon. Friend's Department let the House of Commons know which local authorities are not implementing the Act in the way we should like it implemented? I am getting a bit tired of local authorities who, having been given a wonderful Act to help the chronically sick and disabled, do not take advantage of it. We ought to know the local authorities which are failing.
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend gave some information to the House on 25th July 1973 about four authorities that had at that time failed fully to implement Section 1 of the Act, but I am glad to say that those authorities have now taken steps to fulfil their obligations.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: When an assessment centre run by a regional hospital board proves that a family needs to be rehoused or to be coped with and told how to live together, if the local authority fails to carry out the recommendations of the assessment centre will my hon. Friend publicly condemn that local authority?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman, with his extensive knowledge of the needs of the handicapped and of local government, will I think, on reflection, agree that local authorities have a vast number of pressing and extremely worthy calls for the assistance of the handicapped upon their limited resources, and that it would be invidious to select one particular case without going fully into the background.
    Mr. Astor: Will my hon. Friend say what central Government funds have been allocated to local authorities to help them implement the Act and whether he is satisfied that the money is being used to the full in this way?
    Mr. Alison: Not, I regret, without notice, but I will gladly do so if my hon. Friend will put down a Question. He will know that a great deal of the revenue money comes through the generalised rate support grant negotiations.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the figures published by his right hon. Friend for 1972–73 reveal some shocking variations in local provision? In contrast to the backsliders, there have been many superb achievements by local authorities. Therefore, in the light of the Secretary of State's figures, what action is the Minister taking to lift the general standard to the level of the existing best?
    Mr. Alison: We had a recent debate on this subject in which the comparative league table showed how dangerous it was to draw rapid and superficial conclusions from some of these statistics. I remind the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that in terms of the legislation he sponsored the House was clearly determined to place responsibility on local government, and hence on local electorates, for the discharge of the duty laid upon them by this Act.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present numbered of registered disabled people in Great Britain.
    Mr. Alison: On 31st March last, 577,577 handicapped people were registered with local authorities in England under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, including people who are blind and deaf.
    Mr. Cox: Against the background of those figures, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the sacrifices made by many people in looking after disabled relatives rather than forcing them to go into hospital? Is he further aware that, although those people may be receiving some form of social security payment, this does not leave them with much opportunity to pay National Insurance contributions and that this in turn, at a later stage in their lives, may cause them to suffer in terms of the State retirement pension on which they have had little coverage? Will he consider the possibility of franking the insurance stamps of such people to make sure that they have protection?
    Mr. Alison: I shall want to study the specific and carefully prepared supplementary question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, without at this stage giving any commitment. In terms of the broad picture of need that he outlined and the sympathy which I am sure the House has in this respect, I echo what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government have made some attempt to help through the operation of the attendance allowance.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: When, this autumn, the Department produces its report on the treatment of the disabled, will it include a recommendation for a national disability income?
    Mr. Alison: I am afraid, if I may quote advice given by a party leader on another occasion, that the hon. Gentleman must wait and see.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Government's recent Social Security Act totally failed to make any provision for the disabled on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and indeed in any other way? Is he also aware

    1427
    that at that time we were telling the Government to produce a great, comprehensive policy of provision for the disabled? When are we to get it and when do the Government intend to take action on this matter?
    Mr. Alison: We must wait for the report in October. The right hon. Lady, with her accustomed fairness, will acknowledge the substantial advances made by the present Government in provision for the disabled.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now increase the death grant to £75.
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. The death grant will be considered, along with all other claims on the resources available, when this year's review of national insurance benefits is carried out.
    Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of dying is an increasing burden on poor families. Is he further aware that when the death grant was introduced in 1949 it covered the cost of a funeral, but that today it falls £45 short of this aim?
    Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he will realise that it is a question of priorities. It depends, for example, on the amount of the available resources which we allocate to increased pensions. The cost of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be an extra £35 million a year. For that sum of money we have been able, for example, to provide over 100,000 attendance allowances for the severely disabled.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will my hon. Friend confirm that men born before 1883 and women born before 1888 are not entitled to death grant? If this is so, will not the Government bring a compassionate approach to this problem, as they did to the matter of pensions for the over 80s?
    Mr. Dean: I confirm what my hon. Friend said and I would remind him, without commitment, that this, along with other competing demands on resources, will be considered in this year's uprating.

    Homeless Children
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will instigate an investigation into the numbers of children under 16 years of age living rough, without parents or guardians caring for them.
    Mr. Dean: I am aware of recent reports that some young people, including perhaps a small number under 16 years of age, sleep rough, but I am not sure that an investigation would help. Local authorities have the power to return children of this age to their parents or to receive them into care and provide accommodation for them.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that a Mr. Henderson, of the Elfrida Rathbone Society, claims that there are 3,000 children, some of them very young, living rough in the Liverpool area alone. Does he agree that such reports need investigation so that they can be acted upon if they are true, and refuted if untrue?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. It is difficult to get accurate figures, but we study with care the reports we receive, including this one. There are some indications that the problem is growing. It is for this reason that local authorities have substantial powers and duties. I pay tribute to the valuable work carried out by voluntary organisations in this field, often with Government support.

    Low-Income Families
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he has made to safeguard the neediest households as a result of recent increases in the cost of basic necessities.
    Mr. Dean: Both supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels were increased in October and since then beneficiaries over pension age have received a special payment of £10. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the adequacy of benefits.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister realise that the £10 bonus is rapidly fading from memory and that what is fresh in the

    1429
    minds of the old and the poor is the continuing inflation which is taking place? Will he give an estimate of the amount or proportion by which he expects living standards of the older and poorer people in our community to be reduced if the present Government remain in office during 1974?
    Mr. Dean: I am not prepared to speculate on the last point, but I must, in fairness say that since the present Government have been in office pensions have been increased by approximately 55 per cent., whereas prices have risen by 34·5 per cent. In other words, there is a margin of real improvement in the value of the pension achieved by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Kinsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the most needy families are separated wives with young children to look after and that they are not protected? Will he consult the Home Secretary to see whether dependants can get away from the lengthy process of having to go back to the courts to obtain increases in child maintenance allowances?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. The Finer Committee is studying this matter, but many of these women will be entitled to supplementary benefit. If they are so entitled, we shall ensure that they receive a regular income week by week whether or not the maintenance payment is made by the husband.
    Mr. O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement regarding improved pensions under the Tory Government is not true? Is it not the case that already retirement pensions represent a smaller percentage of national average earnings than they did in 1967—seven years ago—but that by the time the next increase comes along they will represent a smaller percentage of those earnings than at any time since the national insurance system came into being? Is it not clear that the best way to help the pensioners is for the Government to give an immediate pension increase of £10 for single persons and £16 for married couples? If this Government will not take that step, then after the election the Labour Government certainly will.
    Mr. Dean: The figures I gave were accurate and, furthermore, they are a
    1430
    great deal better than the record of the Labour Government. Would the hon. Gentleman now like to say how much his extravagant promise to the pensioners would cost, and who would pay for it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate now.

    Hearing Aids
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many BE hearing aids he has contracted to buy in the first year of the scheme, and how many in subsequent years ; and what proportion of the hearing aids will be imported.
    Mr. Alison: No contract has been placed for imported aids and tenders from potential suppliers are still under consideration. While the rest of the tender exercise remains to be completed, I would prefer, as indicated in the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 4th December, not to disclose the number of aids we have so far contracted to purchase.—[Vol. 865, c. 321–2.]
    Sir Robin Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the welcome announcement of the new policy last July aroused the expectations of about I million partially deaf people in the country and that the mystery surrounding the implementation of this policy is causing a great deal of disappointment? Is he aware, further, of the suspicion that this mystery is connected with his disregard of tenders from home manufacturers and his overlooking the services of 1,000 trained dispensers in the private sector of the industry?
    Mr. Alison: When announcing the new provisions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear, first, that the programme would have to be phased—and therefore I think that many people understood that they would be dealt with later rather than earlier—and, secondly, that the necessity to conduct the programme through the hospital service made it difficult to employ private dispensers.
    Mr. Pavitt: Irrespective of whether hearing aids are imported or supplied by means of local tenders, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be just as cheap to have three or four different qualities of hearing aids giving different outputs of clarity, and therefore

    1431
    that he should not stick to one common denominator but should take a variation, whatever his source of supply may be?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman came personally to see me to make this point. Certainly we undertake to bear it in mind.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend will recall that we pledged ourselves to open Government. What is the ground for secrecy in this instance?
    Mr. Alison: At a time when new tenders may be coming in it is not reasonable to indicate what has been selected already from the successful contractor. If my hon. Friend feels very strongly that we should give further information about this, I will consider whether it can be reasonably done within the normal commercial arrangements for considering tenders.

    National Insurance Cards (Illegal Immigrants)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the new arrangements for preventing national insurance cards being issued to illegal immigrants ; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: In the light of further study of the operational implications, I hope shortly to introduce a procedure under which applicants for national insurance cards who have recently entered the country will be asked for their passports or other identity documents ; this procedure would be applied in those areas of the country where difficulties arise over the accuracy of immigrants' personal particulars.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of some of the fears being expressed about this scheme, will he confirm that it has worked in the West Midlands without difficulty? Will he also confirm that if the scheme is successful it will remove the incentive for the illegal immigration trade, which is the prospect of employment in this country?
    Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is that my Department is undertaking to spread these procedures
    1432
    as I have said, so as better to carry out its own statutory obligations. I cannot predict what the outcome will be.
    Dr. Miller: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has a most sinister implication? What right has his Department to act as a policeman for the Home Department?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is no question of my Department's acting as a policeman. It has a statutory obligation to issue insurance cards to the particular persons identified in the insurance cards. When an applicant cannot always speak English accurately and there is some doubt about the precise name under which he or she goes, because of the habit of using different forms of names, it is only reasonable to have some procedure for checking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) said, in part of the country a procedure has been in use for some time using passports to help my Department get the facts right.
    Mr. Powell: How will my right hon. Friend's officers identify which applicants have entered the country recently?
    Sir K. Joseph: My Department reacts to applications from people who seek national insurance cards for the first time.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will not the Secretary of State acknowledge that the retrospective effects of the 1971 Act have made a lot of people illegal who, because of the six months' limitation, would otherwise have been accepted as being here legally? Will he assure the House that his Department will become no party to a situation where such people holding national insurance cards at the moment and working quite happily in the interests of the British economy are in any way hounded by the Department?
    Sir K. Joseph: My Department is in duty bound to establish whether the person applying for a national insurance card is the person whom he or she purports to be and to get the identification correct. It is only if some breach of a law is thereby suggested that my officials have any duty to communicate with the Home Office. The prime purpose of this procedure is for the fulfilment of the statutory duties of my Department.

    Disabled Drivers (Sharp Report)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Sharp report on disabled drivers.
    Mr. Alison: I have nothing at present to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 2nd November 1973.—[Vol. 863, c. 31–2.]
    Mr. Marten: Is not this getting rather absurd? Is my hon. Friend aware that this report was originally due or hoped for almost a year ago, and that it was finally delivered to the Ministry some time in October, when we were told that there was a delay over printing? Now it is still delayed. Cannot my hon. Friend get on with this and give us a date for its publication?
    Mr. Alison: I cannot give a specific date, but in view of the very point that he made about the length of time taken by Lady Sharp to deliver her report, my hon. Friend will appreciate the complexity of the subject that she dealt with and the need to consider it deeply as to its implications within the Department before publication.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Although we accept that Ministers require time carefully to read the report, is the hon. Gentleman aware that disabled drivers and disabled passengers also want to study its recommendations? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, further, of the deeply disturbing accident figures involving his Ministry's three-wheelers? Does he recall that Lady Sharp's report was with the Secretary of State on 5th October last? Why cannot he publish the report forthwith?
    Mr. Alison: I am bound to reply to the hon. Gentleman as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). It is a complex report and it needs careful consideration within the Department. When it is published, the disabled drivers' groups as well as right hon. and hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss it in consultation with the Department.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: In view of the fact that this is a complicated subject, would it not be better to publish the report and have the benefit of feed-back from disabled drivers themselves? Secondly, why is there no consultation with technologists up and down the country who can produce or modify vehicles so as to enable very severely handicapped people to have vehicles which they cannot have now? Thirdly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are concerned that the very severely handicapped who are not mobile are apparently not covered by the report? Will the hon. Gentleman consider providing vehicles for people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot drive themselves?
    Mr. Alison: On that last point, the hon. Gentleman will want to consider the report when it is published. As I have said already, there will be ample opportunity for disabled groups to consider the report, in consultation with the Department, when it is published, but I believe that it will be to the advantage of the House if the Government have been able to give full consideration to its implications and proposals before presenting it to the House in order to be able to give definitive answers as to future policy.

    Houghton Report
    Mr. Cormackasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he now proposes to take on the Houghton Report.
    Sir K. Joseph: As I told the House during the debate on the report on the adoption of children on 9th November last—[Vol. 863, c. 1335–51.]—the Government are pressing forward with the preparatory work for legislation on the report's recommendations. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) has a Bill concerned with the recommendations which is for Second Reading on 8th February.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge on him the necessity for the Government making clear their position on this vital matter as soon as possible?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

    Group Practice
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the progress of group practice.
    Mr. Alison: In 1966, 30 per cent. of general medical practitioners in England practised in groups of three or more principals. I am pleased to say that by 1972 the proportion had increased to almost 60 per cent.
    Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he any further plans to encourage this trend?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. The existing incentives towards group practice encourage, and will no doubt continue to encourage, general practitioners to get together.
    Dr. Miller: What proportion of the doctors who practise in group practices practise from health centres?
    Mr. Alison: One-sixth.

    Health Hazards (Overseas Travel)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to introduce legislation requiring travel companies to warn travellers of the risk of contracting tropical diseases in certain countries.
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation in order to compel travel agents and tour operators to issue details of health hazards likely to be encountered in overseas travel.
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend sees no need for legislation in this field.
    Mr. McCrindle: In view of potential epidemics from diseases contracted in some parts of the world in particular, and the desire of most people to prevent further compulsory inoculation, is not the proposal that I put forward for legislation a reasonable compromise?
    Mr. Alison: We are satisfied that the existing basis of providing information, widely diffused as it is, is adequate to ensure that the public know all that they need to know.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that a lot of unnecessary suffering, hardship and pain could be eased by accepting the proposal in the Question? Will he consult the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on this matter and reconsider the issue?
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman, having alleged that hardship is being caused, will furnish me with specific evidence, I shall gladly consider it and, in the light of that, consider whether I may have to take up the specific point that he made. At present we are satisfied that the advice and information is adequate fully to cover the public.

    Speech Therapists (Quirk Report)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement concerning the Government's policies on the recommendations contained in the Quirk Report on speech therapists.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the consultations on the Quirk Report on the speech therapy services.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Quirk Report in relation to the future of speech therapy.
    Sir K. Joseph: I regret that I am not able to make the statement to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 17th December. [Vol. 866, c. 270–1.] My officials will be consulting with the profession on the implications of unifying the service.
    Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet in this profession as a result of the uncertainty in which it is placed because it cannot ascertain the Government's views about the recommendations in the report? Are the Government prepared to state what target they have for recruitment to the profession and what steps they are taking to recruit married women and others to it?
    Sir K. Joseph: My officials are consulting the profession on the implications of unifying the service. I shall make a full statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report clearly shows that this profession, which is not properly rewarded, is in short supply in the Health Service, and that this delay will prejudice this position? In view of this serious situation, will he expedite consideration of the report?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have been under pressure from the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on this subject. I am absolutely convinced of the importance of the profession, but I regret that I am not yet quite ready to make a statement.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that pay for this particular profession will be improved? Pay is at the root of the recruitment problem.
    Sir K. Joseph: I think that that, as always in the first instance, is a matter for the Whitley Council.
    Mr. Edelman: Apart from the important question of pay, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Quirk Committee on the urgent need to unify the organisation of these services? Going beyond that, will he also bear in mind the need for combined research by neurologists, linguists and others in related disciplines into the question of human communication raised in the report?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already announced that the Government have accepted a recommendation for the unification of the service.

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he calculates the figure of £130 million given as the cost to the taxpayer of abolishing the earnings rule ; and whether he has calculated the additional amount likely to be collected in income tax in the event of the abolition of the rule.
    Mr. Dean: The cost to the National Insurance Fund, including the loss of contribution income, is estimated to be about
    1438
    £135 million a year. The cost would arise mainly from paying pensions to over 200,000 people who, together with their wives, are not yet drawing pension because they still have regular and substantial earnings. Allowance is made for savings on sickness and unemployment benefit which would no longer be paid. On the basis that the pension would be taxed if paid in full on top of earnings the amount likely to be collected in income tax would be about £35 million.
    Mr. Fortescue: I regret that I heard very little of that reply, but has my hon. Friend taken into account the income tax not paid by pensioners working for undeclared cash because of the earnings rule? Will he bring his sense of social justice to bear on the indefensible anomaly maintained by successive Governments, whereby pensioners with investment income of any size are not subject to the earnings rule whereas pensioners with earned income are liable to have their pensions reduced?
    Mr. Dean: The Government are sympathetic to improving the earnings rule, which has already been improved on two occasions since they came to power. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend or the party to this, but I assure my hon. Friend that his point will be borne in mind along with a great many others.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that when a man has earned a pension by a lifetime's record of contributions he should lose his entitlement to it because he is continuing to contribute to the wealth of the nation by remaining at work?
    Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend knows that part of the contract in the National Insurance Scheme is receipt of pension for people who are not working. Were we to pay pensions to people who are able to go on working—to their credit—full time it would mean less for the very old, the disabled and the widows.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will facilitate staged retirement by, among other measures, reducing the age at which the earnings rule ceases to apply and also by making more flexible the age at which people wishing

    1439
    to do so may draw their national insurance pensions at the time of the annual pension review.
    Sir M. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what encouragement his Department is giving to the concept of staged retirement ; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dean: The present arrangements already allow some flexibility in how an individual arranges his retirement. Any changes of the kind my hon. Friends have in mind, in so far as they would involve reducing the minimum pension age or the age at which the earnings rule ceased to apply, would need large resources, and I am bound to say they do not seem to me to command first priority.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the very different demands of different occupations, let alone the very different health patterns of individuals, of which the present system takes so little account? Will he try hard to make the system fit the individual rather than the individual fit the system.
    Mr. Dean: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I think she will agree that the invalidity benefit which is now available within the National Insurance Scheme is a direct response to the need for a long-term benefit for those who have to give up work owing to ill-health before normal retirement age.
    Sir M. Worsley: I agree that progress in this direction could not be fast. Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be some acceptance by the Government that such a concept should be part of the Government's pension policy?
    Mr. Dean: I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be considered. Indeed, there is some move in this direction with the extra 25p for the over 80s. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that occupational pensions schemes will fulfil a valuable function, in that they can be much more flexible about the age of retirement than is possible with a large State scheme covering many millions of people.

  EMERGENCY (TUC PROPOSALS)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and the CBI.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 3 together at the end of Questions.

  SOLWAY FIRTH
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Solway Firth area.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: Since the Solway is the site of the Chapelcross, Britain's second nuclear power station, and a potential site for many of our new nuclear power stations, will the Prime Minister tell us about the Government's policy on the import of the American light water reactor? Has not Lord Aldington let the cat out of the bag in saying that we would have to import pressure vessels, a coolant system, and many other components of American reactors from the United States? Is this sensible, given the balance of payments problem?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman obviously raises a very important point. It is not possible for me to make a statement on policy at this moment. The Nuclear Power Advisory Board is studying all the possibilities, as the hon. Gentleman, who is well informed about these matters, knows, and various recommendations have been made to the board by those interested in the development of nuclear power. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that no decisions of any kind have yet been reached upon this matter, but these decisions are now urgently required.
  Mr. Fry: Instead of visiting Solway, will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Wellingborough and explaining to my constituents that if the three-day week is to be continued there will be equity in

  1441
  the payment of unemployment benefit, so that those who are out of work on Thursday, Friday and Saturday will not be at the disadvantage that they suffer at the moment compared with those who work on Thursday, Friday and Saturday?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that the length of the working week is under urgent consideration. I shall have something more to say about this matter later this afternoon.

  CBI (MEETINGS)
  Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister how many times he has met representatives of the CBI.
  The Prime Minister: I have had 17 bilateral meetings with representatives of the CBI. In addition, I have had 17 tripartite meetings at which representatives of the TUC were also present including six meetings of NEDC. I have also had numerous meetings with individual members of the CBI on both formal and informal occasions.
  Mr. Strang: Does the Prime Minister accept that the vast bulk of British industry is bitterly disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take up the statesmanlike initiative of the TUC and use it as a basis for negotiations aimed at settling the deadlock between the National Coal Board and the miners?
  The Prime Minister: I propose to say more about this matter in answer to earlier Questions when I deal with them at the end of Question Time. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the broadcast made by the Director-General of the CBI yeterday morning, in which he made it quite clear that he believes in the utmost importance of maintaining the counter-inflationary policy and ensuring that it should not be breached.
  Mr. McCrindle: Will the Prime Minister consider extending the range of talks that he has with employers to include not only members of the CBI but particularly those people who are the providers of financial services in the City whose invisible exports at the moment provide the one ray of light in the trade figures?
  The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a representative group in the City
  1442
  which is dealing with the question of invisible exports and the Chancellor sees it quite frequently when it wishes to deal with these matters.
  Mr. Grimond: The House has heard from time to time of suggestions by the TUC for solving the present economic crisis. Has the CBI made any suggestions? For instance, has it suggested that top emoluments and salaries should be frozen during phase 3 and has it suggested anything for dealing with fringe benefits—payments in kind, pension rights, and so forth, which are by far the most important things for the well paid of this country?
  The Prime Minister: In the talks we have held with the CBI over the last 21 months, the confederation has put forward many proposals for dealing with the economic situation, with industrial relations and with the question of incomes and prices policy. However, it has been the general procedure for these talks to remain confidential and if the parties themselves wish to publish what they have put forward it is up to them to do so.
  On the question of limitations, the CBI has supported the limitation for higher incomes in the incomes policy. Fringe benefits are also matters which the CBI as well as the TUC has frequently discussed and urged upon us. I propose to say something about this matter later, but fringe benefits are an important element of what we, as a Government, said should be discussed between the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers.
  Mr. Woodhouse: Has my right hon. Friend yet ascertained from the President of the CBI whether the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was correct in representing him as having advocated price control without wage control?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was of course quite incorrect—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like a full copy of the speech by the President of the CBI. What he was putting forward was the possible means of dealing with prices and incomes which have been put forward at various times by various bodies. The suggestion of having no incomes

  1443
  policy but a prices policy was one he rejected. The CBI has always rejected that when talking to the TUC, and the TUC will confirm that to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McBride: Has the Prime Minister considered the position of the Welsh section of the CBI and its concern for the worsening financial position of its small-firm members? The financial position now is worse than after the Conservative Budget of 1970. What support is to be given to small firms in Wales to help obviate a situation which could create unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: That is not a matter which the CBI has yet raised with me, but it has asked to come and see me to discuss some other matters that I discussed with the TUC yesterday, and it will have the opportunity of putting the facts before me.

SCOTLAND
Mr. William HamiltonQ5. Mr. William Hamilton asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Scotland in the early part of 1974.
The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans for an official visit.
Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister say whether he will be visiting Scotland before or after the General Election? When he comes will he explain to the local authorities why the vigorous new housing programme promised in "A Better Tomorrow" has resulted in a cut in the total number of new houses built from more than 41,000, on average, between 1967 and 1971 to a likely fewer than 30,000 in 1973—and that at a time when the housing situation in Scotland is probably the most serious and deplorable in Western Europe?
The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have always emphasised the need for the development of private housing in Scotland. However controversial it may be, part of the aim of both Governments of having a satisfactory rents situation in Scotland is that there should be greater encouragement not only for municipal housing but for private housing.
Mr. Tebbit: If my right hon. Friend goes to Scotland will he visit the North-East Coast and ask the companies which are bringing in much needed and scarce investment and technical resources to exploit our oil resources what their attitude would be if they were threatened with nationalisation? Would they be given to bringing in more resources or would they go off and work somewhere else?
The Prime Minister: If they thought there was a serious threat to them they would undoubtedly wish to withdraw the rigs which are there at the moment and use them for exploration elsewhere. It is one of the facts of the world's energy problems and, in particular, oil problems, that there is a great shortage of rigs which are suitable for exploration. It is not possible to have as many as we would like in other areas round our shores. In brief, I do not believe that any proposal for the nationalisation of North Sea oil would solve the problems, first, of exploration on a sufficient scale and, secondly, of a sufficiently rapid production of oil once it has been discovered.
Mr. Douglas: When he visits Scotland will the Prime Minister address his mind to two things? First, how do the Government propose to acquire land for production platform sites? Secondly, when will the Government clear up the matter of the next round of licences and say whether or not they will agree with public participation, if not nationalisation?
The Prime Minister: Both these matters are important and urgent and are receiving immediate attention now.

EMERGENCY (TUC PROPOSALS)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Q1 and Q3.
Six representatives of the TUC came to Downing Street at 4.30 p.m. yesterday afternoon to meet me and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Employment and Energy. We discussed the possibility of relaxing the restrictions on the use of electricity in industry, the general economic situation and its prospects, and against that background the miners' dispute and the TUC initiative.

1445
On the use of electricity in industry, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy explained that, for various reasons which I described in my answers to questions in the House last Friday, stocks of coal at the power stations were higher than had earlier been expected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the House is pleased about that. If there were no significant setbacks, and there was no further reduction of supplies of coal to the power stations, it should be possible to contemplate an early relaxation in the restrictions on the use of electricity. It would be important to give the fullest benefit of any relaxations to manufacturing industry ; and this would depend on savings by domestic consumers continuing at a high level.
We asked the TUC representatives whether, if some such relaxation were possible, they would prefer to see industry move to a four day working week or—if this were practicable—to a live day working week with industry using only 80 per cent. of normal supplies of electricity. The TUC, after our discussions, made clear that it would prefer a five-day week and 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity. This had also been the preference expressed by the CBI at a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend in the morning.
My right hon. and noble Friend is now considering as a matter of urgency whether the technical problems of a five-day week at 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity can be overcome, so that he may be in a position to take a decision later this week if the coal stock situation and supply prospects justify some relaxation.
Clearly one of the factors in his decision must be the industrial action of the mine-workers and its effects upon coal supplies.
We then moved on to a discussion of the general economic situation, on which I expect to have further meetings both with the TUC and with the CBI. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the severe problems which exist in the field of domestic economic policy. The shortfall in energy supplies was bound significantly to affect gross domestic product in the first part of 1974. The substantial additional burden imposed on the balance of payments by the increase in oil prices made it the more necessary to take every advantage of our
1446
competitive situation to increase exports. There would be sizeable demand for new investment, particularly in the development of new sources of energy.
It was therefore impossible to envisage any increase in the volume of resources going into domestic consumption. Indeed, we could well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago, and deny ourselves the improvements in living standards to which, only a few months ago, we have been looking forward. In the light of this change of circumstances, stage 3 of the counter-inflation policy now appeared if anything too generous.
Against that background we turned to the coal miners' dispute and the TUC initiative. The TUC representatives stated that they were prepared to say that the miners were a unique case, that other unions would not use the special nature of the mineworkers' case as an argument in their own negotiations, and that the TUC itself would not come to Downing Street in support of any other case this year. They claimed that in giving this undertaking they would be going further than the TUC had gone before, and indeed could go no further, to ensure that any special settlement for the miners was not followed by excessively inflationary settlements of other claims. Their initiative had been almost unanimously approved by their special meeting on 16th January.
For my part, I made it clear that the Government recognised the significance of the undertaking offered by the TUC and unreservedly accepted its sincerity and genuineness. Nor did we doubt that it could secure the implementation of the specific undertaking it was prepared to give.
But the fact remained that the offer already made to the National Union of Mineworkers was in our view fair, and, in the economic situation facing us, as generous as we could afford. Within the limits of the stage 3 pay code it treated the miners as a special case, and would in fact more than restore their relative position as it was immediately after the Wilberforce award.
The National Union of Mineworkers had resorted to industrial action last November, more than three months before its existing agreement was due to expire. In the meantime 4 million people had accepted settlements within the stage 3

1447
pay code, and the change in our economic circumstances made it more rather than less difficult to envisage increases in excess of the stage 3 code.
Other groups had the same sort of power as the miners to damage industry, cause hardship in homes, and disrupt the life of the nation. I had therefore to say to the TUC representatives that, if the miners' use of their industrial power was seen to lead to a settlement which was excessive by the standard of stage 3—and the nation certainly cannot afford more—there was nothing in the TUC's undertaking to prevent such groups from following the miners' example and using their industrial power to seek to extort excessive settlements. The TUC representatives agreed that this was the case, and emphasised that there was nothing further they could do by means of their undertaking to prevent that happening.
I made it clear, and the TUC representatives accepted, that the Government were not rejecting their initiative or questioning their sincerity. Indeed, it remains on the table. The TUC and the Government are agreed about that. I expressed the hope that we should be able to build on it in further discussions with the TUC on future developments of counter-inflation policy.
But the fact remains, and the TUC representatives agreed, that in present circumstances their initiative would not protect us again the use of industrial power, by those who might be minded so to use it, in pursuance of settlements at a level which the country cannot afford. That is a risk which in present circumstances we cannot run.
A fair and generous offer has been made to the mineworkers. I will, with permission, circulate details of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that hon. Members on all sides of the House will see that full use has been made of the provisions in the stage 3 pay code which enable us to treat the miners as a special case.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have made it clear that the Government are ready, as soon as normal working has been resumed, to start immediate discussions with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on the future of the coal industry, on improvements
1448
in pensions and in provisions for health hazards, and on the pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements.
So the Government have done everything in their power, within what they believe to be right in the interests of the country as a whole, to make possible a settlement of this dispute. The TUC has also offered everything that is in its power to offer to limit the consequences of a special settlement for the miners. The fact that we have had to say that it does not go far enough to prevent the dangers we fear does not mean that we fail to recognise the importance of the step it has made, to which I again pay tribute.
But there is a third party involved in this affair, with whom the responsibility for the future now rests—that is, the National Union of Mineworkers.
The offer which has been made to it, together with our proposals for discussions about the future of the industry, responds to its case for special treatment, within the limits of what the country can afford, and provides a basis on which a secure future for the industry, and for employment in it, can be established.
I very much hope, therefore, that the National Union of Mineworkers will recognise this, and will conclude that acceptance of the offer on the basis I have described will do justice not only to the aspirations of the miners but also to the needs and circumstances of our country of which we are all citizens.
Mrs. Renée Short: The House will be grateful to the Prime Minister for making his statement today, even though it is clear that he is not prepared to accept the undertakings given by the TUC on behalf of the majority of trade unions and made by some of the leaders of the largest unions in the country. Can he say how his statement and the position in which he has left the talks help the miners? Is he aware that while the miners are now offered just over £39 a week, all Labour Members, and the rest of the country, believe that the miners deserve to have their claim met in full? Can he tell the House what he now expects the trade unions to do?
Can he also tell the House when he expects to see full-time working in industry and whether he is now prepared to

1449
ensure that industry receives priority in the use of electricity and that non-essential users will be prohibited from wasting electricity in clubs, pubs, discotheques and such places?
The Prime Minister: We assured both the TUC and the CBI about this yesterday when we asked their advice and they said that they thought that top priority must be given to manufacturing industry. We accepted that advice. We agreed. We have therefore asked that domestic consumption should be limited most stringently, and that all the restrictions should remain on domestic consumption. In the further talks which the Secretary of State for Energy had with the Retail Consortium it was agreed that commerce and trade should not have any great relaxation of the regulations at the moment. Everything which is available should go to manufacturing industry. I hope that meets the hon. Lady's point.
On this question of not accepting the undertaking, I have made clear several times in my statement—and this was fully accepted by the TUC—that we recognised its undertaking. We accepted it and recognised its sincerity and the fact that the undertaking, as approved by the full meeting of the TUC, would be observed. What I explained to the TUC and what it accepted, was not that we did not accept the undertaking but that in the two particular respects I mentioned it does not cover the danger to the counter-inflationary policy. This is absolutely fundamental. If there were to be either a completely guaranteed voluntary policy, which we would certainly like to have if the TUC were in a position to organise it, or complete support for the statutory policy, these problems would not arise.
I have explained—and the TUC has fully accepted this—that there is no questioning of good faith in what it has said and what it says it can deliver. The question is about the circumstances which go beyond that. I have always tried to be absolutely fair to the TUC in these discussions. It has said absolutely frankly, "We cannot cover those circumstances." That, too, I have accepted. It cannot cover the circumstance in which other workers claim to be a special case. Such workers would not cite the miners, they would cite their own special circumstances and would use industrial power
1450
to achieve their ends. They could cause damage to the nation equal to that which could be caused by any other group.
Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country now believes that the three-day week was a botched-up failure? Can he tell the House how he believes industry could have got through to the spring on such a basis? Is he aware that even on a four-day week British Leylands would have gone bust long before then? On that basis, should not industry be allowed immediately to return to a five-day week?
The Prime Minister: All the reports show—and this was certainly confirmed at the meeting yesterday with the CBI and TUC—that the achievements of industry during the past month as a result of special arrangements, mutually agreed between employers and trade unions, have been remarkable. I pay tribute to unions who have forgone their normal rules and regulations and some restrictive practices. Employers have arranged special hours within the limits laid down and as a result production has not decreased anything like proportionately or as much as was anticipated. For this both sides of industry, unions and employers, must have full credit. I believe that the result has been remarkable.
The consultations we had yesterday with the TUC, the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Retail Consortium were aimed at getting back to as full a working week as possible. As I have told the House, the Secretary of State for Energy is today examining the question of the practicality of having a five-day working week with a limitation on the amount of energy used by manufacturing industry. All the increase will go to manufacturing industry. This will lead to a great improvement in output.
Mr. Tapsell: Since deadlock seems temporarily to have been reached on the wages front, might it not be helpful if greater attention were now given to the other aspect of our policy, namely, statutory control of prices?
The Prime Minister: The CBI has been co-operating fully with the proposals for statutory control of prices. It has consulted the Government about

1451
the impact of the prices code whereas unfortunately we did not always have the advice of the TUC on the formulation of the wages code. I agree with my hon. Friend that constant attention has to be given to the question of prices. But this was not a matter raised yesterday in our discussions with either the CBI or the TUC.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In that answer, and earlier in his statement, is not the right hon. Gentleman asking the TUC to give assurances about wages that neither the CBI nor even the Government can give about prices? When he used the phrase—and he did so a number of times—that the TUC accepted this and that, did he mean that the TUC agreed with what he said or merely accepted that he had said it? Could we have that stated clearly?
Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman is now approaching this grave problem on the basis not of the national interest but of a fetishism about stage 3? Is it not clear, too, that whereas to him inflation is exclusively about wages, and he does nothing effective about prices, for every family in the country it is prices, rents, mortgage interest rates and the rest by which they judge the state of inflation which the Economist this week said would increase by 15 per cent. in 1974? As it is now two months since he had before him a proposal on the coalmining dispute—which could have produced a settlement honourable to all parties, even within stage 3—which was rejected out of hand, without his giving it any consideration—is it not the case that the three-day week could have been averted if he had given one-tenth of the time to getting a settlement on that basis that he has given, instead, to confrontation?
Is it not the case that during these two months he has instead taken measures, I do not believe deliberately, which have strengthened the militants in industry and weakened the moderates? Finally, since the pre-Christmas olive branch of the Secretary of State for Employment asking for a response by the TUC has now had a very strong response, surprising many people throughout the country—indeed, a response which has never been equalled either in
1452
peace or war—does not his veto of that response confirm that he is, as he appeared to be all along, more interested in political confrontation than in getting the country back to work, to getting Britain out of the mess in which he has landed us?
The Prime Minister: When I said that the TUC had accepted, I meant that the TUC had agreed. The TUC has said frankly all along that it could not make arrangements to cover these aspects of the question. I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen and others will devote their attention to these aspects of the question, because they greatly concern other trade union leaders. Whereas they know that they would not quote the special aspects of the miners' case in another wage application, they would quote the special aspects of their own application. Therefore, the moderate leaders recognise full well the consequences for them.
The right hon. Gentleman repeats his accusation about militancy. Nothing would encourage militancy more than to accept what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) suggested earlier, that a claim for 31 per cent., involving £130 million, should be met. Nothing would encourage militancy more than that.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to things we have done since the claim was first brought forward. I have gone to the utmost in meeting the NUM and TUC. I have given hours of discussion to them in trying to find a way to a solution, and I shall continue to do so. The TUC fully accepted last night that what mattered to the Government was to try to find a solution to the dispute. That is our position. We shall go on trying to find a solution.
Mr. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the full claim—which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—is he aware that from an early stage in the dispute Mr. Gormley said that the miners were not pushing the full claim and that they wanted the right to negotiate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must know nothing about the negotiations, if that is the basis of their interruption. I hope that the Prime Minister does, but in view

1453
of what he has said I doubt whether he does.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the full claim. Mr. Gormley has made clear several times, and so have I, that what was wanted was the right to negotiate an honourable settlement—[Interruption.] Negotiate, fat-head.
The right hon. Gentleman rejects negotiations in any form outside stage 3. He rejects certain negotiations within stage 3, as he made clear in his letter to me. The Secretary of State for Employment wanted to start negotiations, but was stopped by the Prime Minister, although he has the responsibility.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw)The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. William Whitelaw) indicated dissent.
Mr. Wilson: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He knows the position.
Will the Prime Minister answer the question which I put to him and which he has ducked for two months? When a proposal was put it was already public knowledge. It had been put forward by Mr. Daly in a public statement. The Prime Minister rejected it for reasons which have since proved to be wrong, even in terms of the pay code. Many of us think that the proposal is within stage 3. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to consider it with the evidence which has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in researches which he has carried out? We believe that it is within stage 3. Is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the Secretary of State to examine the proposal freely and to allow the two sides to negotiate on the basis of what the miners and my right hon. Friend have put forward? May we have an answer?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can have a full and complete answer. The matter was first raised by the NUM in its discussions with the National Coal Board, and the NUM dropped it. It was then raised by the right hon. Gentleman in a letter to me, sent on the Friday. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the question of bathing time. His letter to me was marked "Confidential", and it was not going to be made public. Far from rejecting it hastily, I immediately
1454
put the matter in hand to be studied fully.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his judgment, made the matter public at a meeting on the Tuesday evening. I therefore had to reply publicly to him. I pointed out what the consequences would be, and I also said that the final decision rested with the Pay Board. The matter has since been discussed on many occasions between the National Coal Board and the NUM. Both were invited to put their views and position to the Pay Board, which is the proper way of proceeding, and the Pay Board gave its conclusion and decision. I know that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has raised the question of the legal basis for these matters, as has the Leader of the Opposition. He also said that he had not taken legal advice about it.
If there is to be a different decision about the custom and practice of the industry, the matter has to be proved, and it has not been proved. The Pay Board has given its decision on the matter.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has given wrong information to the House in that answer. I do not blame him, because it refers to a matter which took place two months ago and he may have forgotten about it. He got the order and facts all wrong. Is he aware that, contrary to what he said, the miners had not dropped the proposal before I wrote to him? He knows that. He accused me of being responsible for their dropping it. He cannot have it both ways. It was public knowledge before I made it public. I can give proof of that. We will not have the facts twisted by the right hon. Gentleman. He can look up the dates and make a statement tomorrow. He can see who is right. I give him the chance to do that, without blaming him for what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman has misled the House. I do not believe that he did so deliberately. I am giving him the chance to look at the facts and dates and to make a statement in the House tomorrow. Nothing can be fairer than that.
Does he agree that he told me in his letter that it would cost £45 million to £50 million and that in December he

1455
interrupted my speech to make the same point? He then said that it would cost £45 million. Is he aware of what the Pay Board said? He totally miscalculated. Will he get the facts right and allow the Secretary of State for Employment to negotiate on the basis of that proposal, particularly as some of us believe that on the evidence it is within stage 3? If he will not, we shall know exactly what his motives are.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will not help find a solution by adopting that attitude. If the NUM or the NCB wished to pursue this further with the Pay Board—[Interruption.] It will remain a decision of the Pay Board, in any case, because the board decides what this means in the terms of the code.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment discussed this with the NUM when the union saw him. It then agreed to follow the correct procedure—to discuss it with the National Coal Board and together approach the Pay Board, which they did. They were asked for evidence. They produced what evidence they could, and the Pay Board gave its decision. Those are the facts of the case.
Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend, in any future discussions he may have with the TUC, deal with the allegation, made repeatedly inside and outside the House, that 500 miners are leaving the industry each week because of low pay? Will he remind the TUC, the miners and the country at large, that for more than seven months, before the self-imposed overtime ban restricted earnings, recruitment was running at the rate of 320 men a week, more than half of whom were former miners returning to the industry? If the present generous offer to the miners is accepted, that flow of recruitment can be expected to be restored and improved.
The Prime Minister: I have gone into that question. During 1972–73, wastage in the mining industry, at 104 per cent., was the lowest of the main industry groups, and less than half that for all manufacturing industry. That trend continues. Meanwhile, recruitment is steady. The rate of adult recruitment is up by 35 per cent., and over half the new
1456
recruits are former miners who are choosing to return. Voluntary wastage has declined since September. As I have told the House before, the peak figure for voluntary wastage came after the overtime ban was announced.
Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once the House has had the opportunity to study his statement, particularly his mention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the conclusion of the House and the nation will be that the country has suffered an economic defeat under his captaincy? As he has said that we must consider what we can afford, does he not realise that very shortly the country will want to know whether we can afford him? While we move towards a national coal strike, will he continue to do absolutely nothing?
The Prime Minister: I respect the hon. Gentleman, because of his connection with the industry, but how he could say that the Government have done absolutely nothing is beyond public comprehension. I have paid tribute to what the TUC has done. Could we not now ask the National Union of Mineworkers also to play its part? It has had a better offer than any other part of industry. It has had a fresh offer from the Government to deal with the three things that concern it most—health, pensions and the future of the industry from the point of view of its investment, manning and pay structure.
Can there be a fairer or more comprehensive offer to an industry at a time when, as a result of events in the Middle East, a large part of the Western world has been dealt a blow which has sent it reeling? That blow is producing, as we now see day by day, economic instability in individual Western countries, and the developing countries are finding their reserves and economic position wiped out overnight and cannot see any way through to the future. Is it not possible in those circumstances for all three parties to accept that there is a limit to what can be done in this country, and that only in that way can we solve our problems?
Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not clear that what the country needs now is men of toleration and understanding? Would it not help if the Leader of the Opposition, like his predecessor, admitted that there is

1457
such a thing as an unacceptable face of trade unionism as well as an unacceptable face of capitalism?
The Prime Minister: I hope that, after what I have said today in Parliament, the National Union of Mineworkers will see that there is a genuine desire to give miners the best possible arrangements within the counter-inflationary policy, which has been approved by the House, and a genuine desire and will to work with it for the whole of the future of its industry. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) considered the seriousness of the situation, perhaps he might listen. The Government showed their good faith in 1973 by asking the taxpayer to commit £1,100 million of expenditure for the industry, to ensure its future. Our good faith can be judged by that. That arrangement was made by the NCB and the NUM. The Government accepted it, put it to Parliament and carried it through. On that basis of good faith, we should be judged for the future arrangements of the industry.
Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister expand a little more on the Government's policy in one particular? Are the Government saying that if there were an acceptance under phase 3 there could be immediate talks on pay and other arrangements? If that is so, and if the evidence so indicated, would the Government be prepared thereafter to go beyond phase 3, which might give some significance to the offer, or would the offer have to be within the confines of phase 3, in which case it would be academic? Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared for such recommendations to be retrospectively dated to 1st March, when the present pay structure expires?
The Prime Minister: It does not expire on 1st March. The present wage agreement expires on 1st March, and what the miners wish, I understand, is a complete review of the internal pay structure of the industry. No doubt they will also wish to discuss its relativity to other bargaining groups. We have said that we are prepared to discuss that with them.
I cannot give any undertakings here at the Dispatch Box about what that negotiation between the NCB and the NUM will lead to. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, with the
1458
best will in the world, what we have offered to the miners is what we understand they want, which is to consider these problems, which are internal, and known to those connected with the industry, as well as any points they may wish to put about the external arrangements.
I have told the House that the offer already made to the miners, leaving aside what the Government have proposed, puts them in a better relative position than they had after Wilberforce. Wilberforce was designed to give them back their proper relativity. The offer gives them an even better position than the Wilberforce position.
Mr. William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade, commerce and the domestic consumer will willingly accept continued restrictions on the use of energy to give priority to manufacturing industry? What action will the Government take about those politically-motivated councils which refuse to turn off unnecessary street lights?
The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is considerable public feeling about the matter. I think that the answer is for local public feeling to make itself felt with the local councils concerned.
Mr. Orme: Does not the Prime Minister agree that in view of the breakdown of the talks, the public uncertainty now spreading throughout the country, and the facts that the Government's policy has now been challenged and that the Prime Minister has told the House this afternoon that his policy is right in his view and that the British public supports it, he has a duty to test that statement with the British electorate? Instead of just sitting there grinning, the Prime Minister has a responsibility, if he believes in open Government, to tell the British people whether he will stop the present election scare. Is he going to call an election? What is he going to do?
The Prime Minister: The election scare is on the Opposition side of the House. The Government have a responsibility to deal with the situation. We are carrying out that responsibility, and that is what we shall do. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a challenge

1459
to the policy, I repeat that more than 4 million trade unionists have accepted the stage 3 settlements. Such settlements are continuing apace. That shows that by far the greater part of the workers of this country accept stage 3 and are negotiating their own arrangements under it.
There is sufficient flexibilty in the policy for them to meet their own needs, whether in national bargaining or in plant bargaining. That surely shows the massive support for our policy. Four million people have now accepted it. I suggest that the House should maintain its sense of fairness to those 4 million because they negotiated in the context of a policy which was approved by Parliament, that would be accepted in the country as a whole.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has referred on a number of occasions to those 4 million. Is it or is it not the case that the leaders of all those 4

The N.C.B. Offer (to be operative from 1st March 1974)

(i) New minimum basic rates:

£27·59 for surface workers

…

(+£2·30).

£29·86 for underground workers

…

(+£2·57).

£39·36 for face workers

…

(+£2·57).

(ii) Increased shift payments

…

To be 17p an hour between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. for everybody (in lieu of 2½p for day wagemen only).

(iii) Increased holiday pay

…

To be paid at time rates prevailing at time of holiday, with minima of £61 for the main 2 weeks and £5·70 per day for the remaining 19 holidays.

(iv) Additional statutory holiday.

(v) Retirement benefits

…

Lump sum at age 65 raised from £300 to £500. Increases for incapacity retirement from age 51 to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vi) Death benefits

…

Benefits to be provided for all deaths in service to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vii) Efficiency payments

…

Up to 3½ per cent. if a scheme is agreed and approved by the Pay Board.

(viii) Threshold clause

…

In accordance with the Pay Code.

(ix) N.C.B. statement of intent to improve sick pay when circumstances permit.

(x) N.C.B. to discuss the implementation of a third week's holiday as soon as circumstances permit.

The Coal Board estimate that the offer (items (i) to (vi) only) would cost about £45 million (13 per cent.). These figures exclude the increased overtime payments resulting from the higher minimum basic rates. In addition all miners enjoy fringe benefits, worth an average of £2·64 per week.

As I have already informed the House my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have made it clear that the Government are ready, as soon as normal working has been resumed, to start immediate discussions with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on the future of the coal industry, on improvements in pensions and in provisions for health hazards and on the pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
Mr. Healey Mr. Healey (by Private Notice), asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications for British economic policy of the
1460
million workers have themselves accepted, since the 4 million accepted stage 3 settlements, that the miners should be a special case? Is the answer "Yes" or "No" to that proposition?
The Prime Minister: Yes, they have—and they have said frankly that they cannot accept the other points which I have already repeatedly put to the House. These are substantial points which they fully recognise. They told me so at their meetings—that they fully recognise that powerful unions, seeing that one union had been able to get its way by making itself a special case and getting it accepted, could come along with its own special case—not the miners' case: its own special case—and try to achieve the results that it wanted by the same means. They have said frankly that their undertaking does not and cannot cover that position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the difference there and accept it.
Following are the details of the offer:
balance of payments figures and the floating of the French franc.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): Yes, Sir. I made a full statement to the House on the economic situation on 17th December

1461
last. I emphasised the uncertainties relating to the current account of the balance of payments, because of developments on both the supply of oil and oil prices. Since then oil prices have risen still further, and, in fact, have quadrupled during 1973.
The Ministers of the Committee of Twenty, meeting in Rome last week, reviewed the current economic situation and in particular the implications for the world economy of the large rise in oil prices. The committee agreed that countries should not adopt policies which would merely aggravate each others' problems. There was general recognition of the difficulties that would be created, in particular for developing countries, and the need to find orderly ways of channelling surpluses to countries in deficit. The committee considered a proposal by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund for a new fund facility, and agreed that this should be explored.
It is too early to say what will be the effect of the decision of the French authorities temporarily to allow the French franc to float, but the immediate effect has been to improve sterling's overall effective exchange rate.
As far as the domestic economy is concerned, I shall take whatever action may be necessary in the developing situation.
Mr. Healey: Yes, but is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not aware that the trade figures which were published yesterday affect a situation which developed before the oil crisis had time to feed through into the balance of payments, and which existed long before the industrial disputes began in the middle of December? Does he not agree that the situation revealed by those figures is extremely grave for the British economy? Does he not agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that they show that before the oil crisis our balance of payments deficit was running, in relation to our national wealth, more than three times as high as it was running under his predecessor in 1964?
Will the Chancellor tell the House what he proposes to do about the situation in two respects? First, does he not now agree with all informed commentators that excessive domestic demand must be a major factor in the extraordinary fact
1462
revealed by the figures that, in a year when our exporters had extreme price advantages through the devaluation of the pound, the volume of our exports increased less than the volume of our imports? Second, will the Chancellor say when he proposes to introduce the extremely harsh measures to reduce demand which were promised by the Minister for Energy on Friday? Will he assure the House that such measures will be accompanied by essential measures for increasing social justice in this country?
As for the external aspects of our balance of payments problem, does the Chancellor not agree that the decision of the French Government to float the franc at a time when that country has substantial reserves, after a year in which it had a £600 million surplus on its balance of payments, suggests that it is adopting a "beggar my neighbour" policy and that the world may be embarked on a course of competitive devaluation? Is it not the case that the Spaniards devalued the peseta this afternoon? What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to initiative inside the IMF to reach agreement on this matter?
On the question of financing our deficit, will the Chancellor tell us whether he proposes to increase the amount of public authority borrowing from the Eurocurrency markets at rates of interest amounting to about 10 per cent., which impose an arduous and exceptional additional burden on our balance of payments, or has he approached the IMF or friendly Governments for a loan? Does he believe that the Government's decision to go it alone in the oil crisis is likely to make other Governments more ready to help us in this regard?
Is he aware that no one on the Opposition side of the House is now surprised to learn that he should seek to distract attention from the ruin of his economic policies by provoking industrial unrest or that he should seek to slip out of his responsibilities for managing the economy of this country under cover of a General Election.
Mr. Barber: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, one of the best things that could happen for sterling, and which would cost this country and the Labour Party nothing, would be for the

1463
right hon. Gentleman to announce that he intends to use his influence to persuade the NUM to accept the existing pay offer and thus enable the country to return to normal working.
With regard to the general question of the attitude of the several countries involved, all of which face additional deficits as a result of the increase in the price of oil, there was, I thought, a general consensus at our meeting in Rome last week that we should not adopt competitive devaluation policies.
As for the franc, the French authorities have made it clear that they intend to maintain orderly conditions in the exchange markets and that it is not their intention to take action which would initiate a series of competitive devaluations. But obviously the right hon. Gentleman is right in the implication of one of his questions—that it is bound to have effects on other currencies. As I said in my statement, for sterling the immediate effect of floating the franc has been to improve sterling's overall effective exchange rate.
With regard to the IMF, I made it clear in the speech which I made at the Mansion House on 18th October that we have a sizeable borrowing capacity within the IMF and that I should not hesitate to use this if necessary. There were some stories in the Press that this was one of the matters discussed in Rome, but that is not so.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the effect on our balance of payments of factors other than the consequences of the increase of the price of oil, I made it clear to the House in my statement or in the subsequent discussion in December, when I announced the substantial cuts in public expenditure, that the extra cost of oil to our balance of payments was a severe blow, because our balance of payments was in considerable deficit before the oil situation developed—although there was then reason to believe that, as the effective depreciation of sterling worked through into the balance of payments, the deficit would begin to improve next year.
To be fair, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny a fact of considerable importance if he is looking back
1464
to that situation—that without the increase in world prices since the middle of 1972 this country would not have been in deficit last year.
Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures released this morning by the Bank of England, showing the continued increase in the money supply, are causing grave concern? Will he give urgent and renewed consideration to measures to correct that?
Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend will recall that in my statement before Christmas I announced, together with the Bank of England, certain measures to make credit less easily available, and I have no doubt they will have their effects.
Dr. Gilbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that sterling is under-valued? How long is it since he last said that it was under-valued, and how much value has it lost since he last said that?
Mr. Barber: I have no doubt—this is certainly recognised by people outside our own islands—that our position is extremely competitive. I should have thought that it was generally accepted that, on that basis, sterling is undervalued. It is worth pointing out—the hon. Gentleman, who always considers these matters sensibly and fairly, will accept this as significant—that while, for the last couple of months or so, we have been in the midst of a severe industrial dispute and have had additional problems of oil prices and shortages of supply piled upon us, the effective rate of sterling against other currencies is no lower than it was last October.
Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend say what he considers will be the impact of 1974 oil prices on the balance of payments, now that the posted prices have gone up from 3 dollars a barrel to 11·50 dollars? Will he hazard a guess on the trend of world commodity prices and also say what percentage of the GNP is represented by the 1973 deficit, and how that compares with the figure for 1951?
Mr. Barber: I cannot give, offhand, the answer to my hon. Friend's last question, but the effect in 1974 of the increased oil prices will mean an addition to our import bill of about £2,000 million this

1465
year. My hon. Friend will note my words, "an addition to our import bill". There will of course be some offsets which have been pointed out in the past by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—namely, that we shall have the opportunity of exporting to those countries that are earning these surpluses. Also, in so far as they cannot spend all the money they get, they will be depositing some of their surpluses on capital account in this country and other countries which will be in deficit.
Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is time the Government gave up describing the present situation as arising from the problems of success? Is it not the case that we now face one of the worst economic situations that this country has ever gone through, and that the pound is at its lowest against the dollar that it has ever been? Must we not then give up the idea of growth for growth's sake, fed by inflation, and concentrate such resources as we have upon social priorities? Second, what will be the effect of the floating of the franc upon the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Barber: On the second point, again I am afraid that I cannot give an answer off the cuff. It is self-evident, of course, that there will be certain technical problems similar to those which arose when the pound was floated. I find it difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's first point. After all, it would have been relatively easy, ignoring for a moment the oil deficit and thinking of the deficit which arose not because of the increase in oil prices, to have avoided the occurrence of a deficit by adopting the same sort of policies adopted by the previous Government, when they decided not to pursue a policy of economic growth at the sort of level that we have been pursuing. There are arguments for saying that that is what should have been done. But I have been frank with the House, and I said in December that the simple fact is that we cannot in present circumstances, with the increase in the price of oil and the shortage of oil and certainly not with the ban on overtime of the miners, hope to achieve—I think that this has been generally accepted—the sort of growth rates which we have been planning and which we expected to achieve.
Mr. Ridley: The non-oil deficit, although perhaps giving cause for concern, could possibly be covered by borrowing against the event of an upturn later on, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the addition of a possible extra £2,000 million adverse balance of trade now means that it is necessary to take action to correct the adverse trend of our balance of payments?
Mr. Barber: The general agreement at the meeting in Rome among the world's leading finance Ministers was that, in relation to the deficit which arose from the increase in oil prices, it would not be the right action for Governments to deal with that by deflationary measures or by such means as competitive devaluations, and so on, and that we had to tackle it in some other way. There was a general appreciation, I think, that the idea of a new facility to be introduced by the IMF was by far and away the best way of dealing with the problem. I am sure that that will be pursued, and it has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
The non-oil deficit, of course, was a matter of concern but it was reasonable to take the action that we were taking at that time—namely, to borrow on public sector account to deal with the situation. The general view was that with the effective depreciation of sterling there was every reason to believe that, but for the quadrupling of oil prices and the industrial action and the shortage of oil supplies, in the second half of this year the current account of our balance of payments would have been improving. The only alternative would simply have been to cut back on growth.
Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman said that Britain was in a very competitive position. If that is so, why was nearly half the £2,300 million deficit on our balance of trade last year with the EEC? Did he discuss with the other members of the Community whom he met in Rome what steps he could take to ensure that they would accept to reduce the trade imbalance between this country and the rest of the Community?
Mr. Barber: The only way in which we can improve our trading balance with the Community, the United States or any other country or group of countries, is

1467
by being competitive and by having the goods available to export. As I said, one of the present problems is that this country, because of the shortage of electricity resulting from the miners' ban on overtime, cannot produce all the goods which in present circumstances it undoubtedly could sell.
Sir D. Renton: In view of the serious effect upon the economies of developing countries of the increase in the price of oil, and in view of the increasing difficulty that we shall have in helping those countries with overseas aid, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be proper for the oil-producing countries to use some of their enormous balances to help those countries in these new difficult circumstances?
Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, which in the developed countries tends too often to be overlooked. When one goes to a meeting like that of the Committee of Twenty in Rome, and sits as I do in that body, always next to Mr. Chavan, the Finance Minister of India, who has to deal with terrible problems, and when one hears from other finance Ministers throughout the developing world of their enormous problems because of these increased prices, one is bound to say that, although we have our problems, their problems—literally problems of life and death—as a result of balance of payments difficulties are infinitely more serious. I and others throughout the developed world agree with my right hon. and learned Friend and hope that those oil-producing countries which are amassing these vast surpluses will take some steps to try to alleviate the problem which has been caused to the developing countries.
Mr. Healey: Is the Chancellor aware that the public, as well as many people in the House, will be surprised and somewhat shocked by his complacency about his own responsibility for the current situation? Is not nearly half the increase in world prices to which he referred due to the devaluation of the £ sterling, which itself arose because of his economic mismanagement? Is the Chancellor not further aware that in the 19 months which have passed since he began to devalue the pound, our balance
1468
of payments position has steadily deteriorated? It has been getting worse quarter by quarter. Is not this largely due to the fact that he has continued to pump additional demand into the economy at a time when it was already suffering from physical constraints?
Finally, when will the Chancellor take the action demanded by the Governor of the Bank of England the other day to deal with the non-oil part of his deficit?
Mr. Barber: Concerning the non-oil part of the deficit, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to recognise that the action which I announced in December—a cut of £1,200 million in public expenditure—was one of the largest measures that has ever been taken to deal with demand. It was equivalent to a doubling of the rate of VAT, from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. I appreciate full well that higher taxes is the approach which a Labour Government would have adopted, because we know that in the past they always turned to that in the first instance, rather than to public expenditure. I believe that it falls very ill from the right hon. Gentleman's lips to criticise the present Government for the action which we have taken on that score when he, of all people, is putting his weight behind his party's proposals for vast increases in public expenditure, which would do this country an enormous amount of harm.

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the rate support grants to local authorities in England and Wales for 1974–75. Details are set out in the White Paper, Cmnd 5532, copies of which are available at the Vote Office.
I discussed the settlement with local authorities last week. It assumes that they will make the reductions in expenditure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May and in December. Details will be given in a circular. I should emphasise that local authority relevant expenditure in 1974–75 will still grow in real terms by 2½ per cent.

1469
The present formula for distributing the needs element no longer reflects the true variations in local authorities' spending needs particularly bearing in mind reorganisation. The effect of our new proposals is broadly to give a greater share of the total of the needs and resources elements of grant to the declining city centres. I also consider that there is a real need to correct the balance between the burdens on the domestic and non-domestic ratepayer which was distorted by the last revaluation.
So I propose to increase the total amount to be devoted to domestic relief to £446 million in all—more than double last year's amount. Much of this will go to help those domestic ratepayers who would otherwise suffer as a result of changes in the grant system, reorganisation and the effect of the new water and sewerage charges. In the light of further consultations and subsequent changes in the settlement I have decided on a fixed minimum domestic element of 7p rather than the 10p I previously announced, but the majority of ratepayers will be getting more than 7p and many will be getting more than 10p. Indeed the 7p will apply only in areas gaining under the new grant distribution.
I have decided to propose, subject to the approval of the House, a grant percentage of 60·5 per cent. This compares with 60 per cent. in 1973–74. It would mean a total grant of £3,431 million.
As a result of this redistribution of the domestic element and of the high rate of grant I believe that the percentage rise in domestic rate burdens can be kept to a maximum of about 9 per cent. subject to any exceptional local circumstances. In a number of cases, particularly in the cities, there should actually be a decrease in the domestic rate burden. The average national increase should accordingly be about 3 per cent. But this is on the understanding that local authorities play their part in keeping down expenditure.
Even with these provisions rates can bear hardly on some domestic ratepayers. I have done two further things. I have altered the statutory deductions to lessen the burden on domestic ratepayers in dwellings with a lower rateable value. And in addition over 2 million domestic ratepayers should be helped for the first time through the new rate rebate scheme
1470
at a cost approaching some £100 million, the cost of which will be borne as to 90 per cent. by the Exchequer.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will not the rate rise for most domestic ratepayers in this country, on the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, the White Paper and the grant order, be a minimum of 9 per cent. or thereabouts? Does not the White Paper use the phrase—I have never heard it previously except in a sporting connection—
"We hope to keep the rate rise down to single figures"?
Is the Secretary of State saying that the Government accept a 9 per cent. increase?
Why has the Secretary of State said nothing about the rate rise to other ratepayers, to industry and commerce, for example? Is it true—as I am advised by local authorities—that the Government accept that the rate rise for local authorities will be about 20 per cent.?
Regarding the Government's hopes of maintaining a national average increase of 3 per cent., would the Minister be surprised at the comment of one of the country's leading local government finance experts who, when I asked him about it a few moments ago, said that that hope was "totally ludicrous"? I believe that to describe the hope as "totally ludicrous" is a masterly understatement. The rate increase cannot be kept down to 9 per cent., and the Secretary of State knows it. Furthermore, neither can the rate of growth of local authorities' expenditure be kept down to 2½ per cent., which the Minister is suggesting, because of the commitments which have already been taken on board by local authorities for the reorganisation of schools which have been built, for staffing old people's homes, and so on.
My second main question is this. As the Government's phase 3 policy, which the House has just been considering for the best part of an hour, is based upon a 7 per cent. increase in basic wages, will not the order accepting an increase of 9 per cent. for domestic ratepayers amount to a blatant breakage of the Government's economic policy? How on earth can that be justified?
Mr. Skinner: It is a special case.
Mr. Howell: This is a very serious matter. It is a special case.

1471
There is another point of tremendous importance. Will not this 9 per cent. increase for domestic ratepayers help to push up the retail price index, which will then help to trigger off the threshold agreement allowed for in phase 3, and, therefore, to that extent, is not this adding to the inflationary pressure in the country as a whole?
Finally, the Secretary of State has now announced a 7p support for the domestic element. But did not the Secretary of State, on Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, announced that the help to the domestic ratepayer would be 10p, and did not the Chancellor, in his Budget Statement just before Christmas, say that there should be no increase in rates? Why have the Government ducked and dived in this manner? Why did the Minister for Local Government and Development tour the country recently consulting every local authority on the basis of an obligation that they would get a 10p assistance for the domestic element when the Government have now reneged upon that promise?
Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said is totally wrong. First, I mean a maximum of 9 per cent. as being proper in ordinary circumstances subject to special local conditions, and local ratepayers will have to monitor their local authorities in that regard. As I explained, in many cases there should be a reduction in the rate bill of domestic ratepayers, for example in Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, where they will receive a substantial additional percentage grant.
The reason why I announced this afternoon that I had decided upon a 7p minimum domestic element arose from my consultations with local authorities who favoured a variable domestic element. As a result of this, the 7p will apply only in those areas which are already receiving a substantial additional proportion of the grant. In other areas which have a loss of grant, considerably more than the 10p will be given as relief to the domestic ratepayer. That is why I am able to say that the average domestic increase over the country as a whole should be about 3 per cent. The maximum of 9 per cent. is to be, as far as one can achieve it, a maximum, but the variations below the 9 per cent. will be very considerable
1472
and should result in a reduction in the domestic rate in many areas.
It is perfectly fair to say that non-domestic rates in many areas will rise by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., or possibly more. On the other hand, in the cities to which I have referred there should be a reduction not only in domestic rate but also in non-domestic rate. There should, therefore, be considerable benefit to the cities.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that the criticisms which were made last year centred on two matters. First, it was said that we had not taken sufficient account of the problems in big cities resulting from the declining population and the heavy social expenditure, so we paid great regard to that. It was also pointed out that in many areas revaluation had the effect of transferring a higher proportion of the rate burden from the domestic to the non-domestic ratepayer and that we should also put that right. That is the purpose of the settlement which we have negotiated.
Mr. Arthur Jones: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that this method of distributing central Government funds, with the infinite variety of local circumstances that face him, is the best method that is available? It means a tremendous complication in the distribution of the domestic element because of the recognition of the problems there, and a wide variance between the domestic rate and the rate which will be payable by other hereditaments. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think a much simpler method would be to introduce differential rating for commercial and industrial hereditaments?
Mr. Rippon: That could certainly be borne in mind for the future. We have made the best settlement we can in present conditions, bearing in mind the difficulties that arise from dealing with so many new authorities as the result of reorganisation. We have said that we regard the implementation of the formula as something to be looked at in the future in a much more flexible light.
If the House considers what was said last year about the problems of inner cities it will realise that it is not unreasonable to redistribute the grant this time so as to give greater benefit to them to meet

1473
their needs. We are also pursuing the same policy in relation to housing.
Mr. Hooson: Stripped of its verbiage, does not the Minister's announcement mean that, with the increase in the water and sewerage rate, these new arrangements will mean an increase in the cost of living of almost everybody? Is the Minister aware that in certain rural areas such as Mid-Wales, which surfer from depopulation and have very low average earnings, there will be a substantial increase in the rates? Exactly what did the Minister mean by "special local conditions" when he referred to the maximum of 9 per cent.? In the present economic climate do the Government regard this as a wise policy to pursue?
Mr. Rippon: What I mean by "special local conditions" is that, although we can make a national settlement which lays down broad guidelines, we must accept that it is ultimately for each local authority to make its own decision on the rates. There may be various local matters such as the size of balances, and so on, which the local authority may have to consider. All we are providing is a structure within which we can say that if the local authorities make the cuts in expenditure for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked and play their part in containing inflation, this should be the result, and local ratepayers can monitor any increase above 9 per cent. with that factor in mind.
To keep to the 9 per cent. in some areas it is necessary to give a larger domestic element than the 10p, and that factor has been brought into account. It will not mean a rise in the cost of living of the sort to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred for many ratepayers. Many ratepayers, particularly in cities, will be paying lower rates in spite of the increase in wages they may receive. We also took into account as far as we could the problems of sparsity as well as the problems of the big cities.
Mr. Allason: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend feel that this is a time for special generosity, when extreme difficulties will arise from ratepayers coming under new authorities? Although I am sure we all greatly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement of the doubling of the sum available in the domestic element, is he satisfied that he is being sufficiently generous to
1474
counties which have suffered harshly in Wales and the home counties—particularly Hertfordshire—where domestic rates have risen considerably in the past few years?
Mr. Rippon: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have tried to bring about a generous settlement, which, while recognising the particular problems of the cities, at the same time imposes a limitation on the burdens in the counties and elsewhere.
We have also agreed on a 60·5 per cent. Government contribution which is an improvement on last year's 60 per cent. We shall altogether be contributing £3,431 million out of a total relevant expenditure of £5,671 million. It is against those figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reduction in public expenditure must be set.
We have to bear in mind that if—as we believe we should—we are to help the cities with their special problems both with general expenditure and housing, the counties must accept that that will to some extent throw a greater burden upon them, given the same total expenditure. On the other hand, in so far as we can solve more readily the various problems of the cities with their declining population by giving them more for housing and other matters, areas such as Hertfordshire will not have to have so much overspill or such extensions of new towns as they might not desire.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the local authorities challenge his figures and his suggestion that the rate increase can be kept to a maximum of 9 per cent. unless a drastic and shocking cut is made in essential services, especially in education? Equally, the local authorities do not accept his figure of expenditure growth which they believe cannot be obtained in real terms.
Mr. Rippon: In so far as there are reductions of expenditure and services as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cuts, the benefits of the reduction in expenditure should go to the ratepayers. They do not get it both ways. As I said, we reckon that there will be real growth in local government expenditure of about 2½ per cent. but in many areas there will be cuts in the level of services provided. The total of £200

1475
million cuts in public expenditure—£81 million in May and £121 million in December—are not unreasonable against a total relevant expenditure of £5,671 million.
Mr. Redmond: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend a little on what he is saying about cities? He mentioned Manchester. Is he referring to the Manchester Metropolitan District or the Greater Manchester County Council? There is a strong feeling in Bolton, which is part of the metropolitan county, that the new county council is being extremely profligate in planned expenditure, particularly on new offices, and there is concern about the precept that would be made on the Bolton Metropolitan District. Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain how this will work?
Mr. Rippon: This is one of the problems of settlement this year since we are dealing with new local authorities in many areas outside London. In the case of the new Manchester District Council, we expect that they should receive about £6 million more in grant.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Secretary of State for the Environment aware that hon. Members from Wales regret that the Secretary of State for Wales has not made a separate statement on the situation as it affects the Principality? Can the Secretary of State for the Environment say whether the Secretary of State for Wales will make a statement in future so that we may cross-examine him on the effect of these proposals in Wales? In the meantime, could he clarify the position? Is it not the case that following the statement and the new policy, officials in the new Welsh county councils, apart from South Glamorgan, will be worse off than they were before—and this at a time when they are to suffer the cutbacks which have been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is he aware that the effect on regional policy will be disastrous and most discouraging to the new county councils in Wales, and also to the district councils?
Mr. Rippon: The White Paper is presented by myself and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall shortly be producing a circular setting out details for England
1476
and my right hon. and learned Friend will be issuing a circular for Wales.
Mr. Hughes: We want a statement.
Mr. Ridsdale: I welcome an increase in the domestic element, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be better and fairer if the education charge had been made a national charge? This would avoid subsidies and make it easier for those who cannot afford to spend large sums of money. For this reason is it not possible, in the case of those who are unable to meet these burdens, for the water rate to be rebateable?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been making these points for many years and I have debated the subjects with him before. It has been arguable as to where the burden of education expenditure should lie. This is all public expenditure and has to be met, whether by ratepayers or taxpayers. I should have pointed out that as a result of the transfer of functions the local authorities this year are relieved of £350 million of relevant expenditure. This has occurred because of the transfer of local health and other services and 90 per cent. of the cost of student grants.
Mr. Boscawen: What special measures has the Secretary of State in mind to help those county authorities whose provision has been drastically cut in size as a result of the increased burden which they will have to bear in maintaining adequate administration and services?
Mr. Rippon: I think that it will be necessary to look at the position county by county, but we have borne in mind the difficulties which arise when entirely new authorities are created. Some will receive an additional percentage of the total grant available.
Mr. Armstrong: In view of the spiralling costs and the grave economic situation of the country, is the Secretary of State not being completely irresponsible in pretending that local authority services can be maintained if the increase in rates is to be confined to 9 per cent? I was disturbed to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman mention the cities in every reply he made to questions on his statement. Is he aware that in the non-metropolitan counties, such as Durham,

1477
the effect of the built-in bias which he has proudly announced this afternoon will cause consternation in local authorities? Those authorities are faced with the cruel dilemma of whether to cut services, or to put up rates much higher than the Secretary of State would allow them to do.
Mr. Rippon: It is a 9 per cent. increase in domestic rates. Non-domestic rates generally will, as the hon. Gentleman said, tend to rise, except in those cities that receive so much additional grant that they should be able to reduce both domestic and non-domestic rates. Given that the size of the cake does not change very much, we have increased the total grant. Everybody on both sides of the House last year agreed that we would do something to redress the balance between the domestic and the non-domestic ratepayer and also that we would assist the inner cities with special problems. This can be done only at the expense of other parts of the country. By giving a grant of 60·5 per cent. and by doubling the amount of money available for the domestic element, we have limited the burden that will fall on domestic ratepayers in the country as a whole.
Dame Irene Ward: Although I am certain that the Secretary of State has produced a scheme which he thinks is fair and just—and I am sure that he has done his best—I am a little worried about his constant references to cities. I am delighted to know that Newcastle will receive so much benefit because that in turn will benefit the region to which both my right hon. and learned Friend and I belong. But will he define a "city"? I should like to know what will happen to Gateshead, Sunderland, Durham and Tynemouth. Gateshead and Sunderland probably require even more help than do some other areas, and certainly some of these areas would also be defined as "cities".
I do not want the Secretary of State to go away with the idea that everybody in the north of England will be entirely pleased—although Newcastle will be pleased—with the way in which these problems in other areas—areas that ought to be regarded as cities—have been dealt with. Will he kindly tell me how he defines a city, because Newcastle's
1478
problems from the point of view of employment and similar matters are not as difficult as those in Sunderland?
Mr. Rippon: The difficulty last year was that in grant terms many cities appeared to suffer too great a detriment compared with the rest of the country. We have tried to put that right. I do not know that I can give figures for every part of the country, but I can say that Sunderland should get about £4 million more grant.
So far as metropolitan counties are concerned, the percentage increase in grant for Greater Manchester should be 7·9 per cent., in Merseyside 6·4, in South Yorkshire 1·3, in Tyne and Wear 5·7, in the West Midlands 1·4 and in West Yorkshire 4·2 per cent. Greater London gets an increase of 3·4 per cent. and there is a figure of 3 per cent. weighting to be taken into account, but in Greater London we must have regard to the equalisation scheme which London works out for itself. There will be considerable variations over the country. The cities benefit, the counties on the whole have to pay, but the domestic ratepayer is shielded by the additional provision made for domestic rate element and the additional percentage grant which the Government are making applies to the country as a whole.
Dame Irene Ward: That is no answer to my question.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today of an increase in rates from 1st April of around 9 per cent., 10 per cent., or perhaps more, despite all his talk today—and let us remember that we still have the Budget to come—must be coupled with the fact that on that same day 70 per cent. of the 5 million council tenants who are not included in the October arrangements will be hammered again by the Government for another 50p increase in their rent? That takes account of the 30 per cent. rent rebate which, according to the Government, will not be affected. Is this not a savage indictment of the Government's policy, in a year when they are talking about no special cases for wage claims?
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong. As I

1479
tried to explain, I talked about a maximum increase. The hon. Gentleman might at least recognise that the Government have done their best to meet so many criticisms that arose last year about rates in cities. A large number of ratepayers, although they may have had additional wages in phase 3, will be paying less rates. Moreover, there are over 2 million ratepayers who for the first time will benefit from our rate rebate proposals. The hon. Gentleman should think about the way in which some of his colleagues in some parts of the country are keeping many people's rents up when they could go down.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the matters which we are discussing today constitute one of the gravest blows struck at Wales in modern times? Does he appreciate, further, that the proposals will bring about the ruination of Welsh local government? Will he be honest with the House and admit that Wales will be receiving a sum probably in excess of £10 million less than she receives in the current year, accounting for the average rise in prices, and that it means either a diminution of services already at a low level or a vast increase in rates well above the 9 per cent. which he mentioned?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that Wales will not be further discriminated against when it comes to imposing the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month, and that the poorer areas which are being used to subsidise the cities in this scheme will be made an exception from the Chancellor's cuts?
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Secretary of State addresses himself to the Welsh question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), may I seek your guidance on this point? It is impossible for hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to probe the position in Wales when the Minister replying to questions is primarily responsible for the English situation. Can you assist me in ensuring that the Secretary of State for Wales, who has ministerial responsibility for this matter in Wales, himself makes a statement and answers questions on Welsh matters?
Mr. Hardy Mr. Hardy rose——
Mr. Rippon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can help the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts). I am responsible because the Labour Government refused to transfer the function to the Secretary of State for Wales. I am wholly responsible. As I have said already, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will produce a circular in due course dealing with Wales and the effect on Wales.
As for the question asked by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), he has wildly exaggerated the position in Wales. I can assure him that there will be no discrimination against Wales in the cuts which will be imposed which would affect the 9 per cent. mentioned for the domestic ratepayer.
Mr. Hardy Mr. Hardy rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I think that the point has been met. I have allowed supplementary questions to go on for a long time. I think that I should bring this matter to a close as soon as possible. Mrs. Joyce Butler——
Mr. Marks: On a further point of order——
Mr. Denis Howell: On that same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I have every sympathy with my Welsh colleagues, my English colleagues also are seriously perturbed. Is it not the case that the Rate Support Grant Order, about which the Secretary of State has made his statement, is presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales? That being the case, is not it reasonable for hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies to expect, when they ask questions which are perfectly in order, that at least the Secretary of State for Wales might try to answer them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise the interest that there is in this matter, and I have permitted a great deal of latitude on what was not a point of order at all. In any event, it is not for me to tell Ministers who is to answer hon Members' questions.
Mr. Marks: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Details of

1481
the rate support grant are usually published in the form of a Rate Support Grant Order, which we are able to debate. They have now been published as a White Paper and not as an order. When shall we be able to debate them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's question has been heard. Mrs. Joyce Butler.
Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter is of great importance to the House and to local authorities. The reason why the details of the rate support grant have been published in the form of a White Paper is that the Rate Support Grant Order canot be made until the Local Government Bill which we are to consider later today has been enacted. Quite apart from getting through this House, that Bill has still to go to another place. Therefore there will be a tremendous delay.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) pointed out, treasurers normally get this information in November so that they may make their calculations about rates. In view of that, may I at least ask the Secretary of State to say what is the Government's timetable? When will the order be laid before Parliament, and when shall we be able to debate it so that we may give sensible guidance to local authorities?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The voice of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) will have carried across the table to the Treasury Bench. I am sure that his question will have been heard.
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the delay. This new basis of grant depends on the Local Government Bill reaching the statute book. I cannot say when that will be, but I am sure that the Opposition will assist in expediting its passage through the House.
Mr. McBride Mr. McBride rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).
Mr. McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the exchanges which have occurred. May I remind you respectfully that it is your duty as Mr. Speaker's deputy to protect the rights of backbenchers? Can the Secretary of State for Wales be persuaded to say when he will discuss these matters in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot tell the Secretary of State for Wales what he should say in the House.
Mr. Swain: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just now in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Secretary of State for the Environment made an oblique reference to Clay Cross. It is the only authority which he could have referred to in his reply to my hon. Friend. Clay Cross happens to be in my constituency, and on numerous occasions I have tried to raise matters in this House pertaining to Clay Cross. Each time I have been ruled out of order because the case is sub judice. Tomorrow, Thursday and Friday the Clay Cross case will be heard by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls. My point of order is to ask whether it is in order for the Secretary of State to make references, either directly or obliquely, to Clay Cross and to the housing commissioner without taking into consideration the sub judice rule?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The case must not be prejudiced. But I heard nothing which was prejudicial to it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We really must move on now. Mrs. Joyce Butler.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL
5.8 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings.
The subject of consumer protection as it affects the health service is a very big one, but in this Bill I wish to draw attention only to two aspects which worry a great many people and about which I have received a considerable number of representations.
When people become ill or suffer injury and require hospitalisation, it is an additional worry to many of them to feel that they seem to have lost the right of control over their own bodies. When the hospital is a teaching hospital and they find themselves suddenly surrounded by a group of students and made the subject of a lecture, many of them are very embarrassed and upset by this procedure.
Recognising this, about a year ago, the Department of Health and Social Security issued guidance to hospitals stressing the need to inform patients that they had a right to refuse to co-operate in teaching if they wished. It also stressed the importance of consulting patients about teaching when the teaching was about to take place. Despite this guidance, it is clear that it is not being followed in many cases and that it is quite usual for patients not to be warned or consulted. Sometimes they have pressure put on them, and many are quite unaware of their right to refuse to co-operate in teaching.
Doing as the Ministry recommends and requiring consultation with patients need not be time wasting, and I do not think that it would reduce materially the number of patients available for teaching purposes.
Many people quite like and enjoy being the centre of attention, even when they are in hospital, but the Bill would ensure that those who are particularly sensitive, nervous or unwilling, have the right to refuse teaching if they cannot face it.
Many cases have been drawn to my attention. One concerned an 18-year-old girl who attended as an out-patient for an internal examination. She was quite
1484
appalled when the doctor came into her cubicle accompanied by a female student and several male students, but she was far too upset to complain. The whole procedure put her off completely.
Another woman, who was admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pains, failed to find out what was wrong from either the consultant or the registrar until, on the fourth day, the surgeon, surrounded by 12 students, told her to lie on top of the bed, to lift up her nightgown, and to lower her pants slightly, whereupon the students proceeded to pressure and prod her and discuss her case and were invited to suggest what was wrong with her. At the end of this procedure the surgeon said the trouble was a ruptured ovary. The point is that she had no idea that this would happen. She had not been consulted and she did not know that she had the right to refuse.
Apart from the embarrassment at the time, this kind of early traumatic experience can prevent people, when they are later ill, seeking the treatment that they should have. This is a serious matter if it has that effect.
Because this lack of respect is often shown to patients, the Bill seeks to write into the law the right of patients to hospital treatment with only those persons present who are necessary to provide the treatment and ensures that a patient's consent must be given before anyone else is allowed to attend.
The second part of the Bill is concerned with what are sometimes called human guinea pigs—patients who are subjected to clinical research investigations.
About six-and-a-half years ago, as a result of public concern about this matter, the Royal College of Physicians recommended that hospitals should set up ethical committees to vet these schemes for clinical research investigation. This guidance was welcomed by people generally, particularly by the Patients' Association, which has done an incredible amount of work in the Health Service for the public. Since then ethical committees have been established by all hospital management committees, except in the few cases where no clinical investigation is undertaken. So far so good.
As ethical committees are necessary not only to safeguard patients but to

1485
assist and safeguard doctors and reassure the public, their constitution, functions and the procedure that they follow is not just a matter for professional bodies. The community has a vital interest, too.
For this reason, the Bill makes it mandatory for each of the new Area Health Authorities, which will operate on 1st April, to appoint an ethical committee for every National Health Service hospital or group of hospitals in its area. It clearly lays down that the ethical committee's function shall be to consider all aspects of medical experiments on human beings in hospitals, that all experiments which are not intended to benefit the individual patient must be sanctioned by the ethical committee and the patient must consent thereto. All such patients must be genuine volunteers and fully aware of what is proposed.
To ensure that the public view is adequately represented, the Bill requires that one-fifth of the members of each ethical committee shall be lay members not employed in the Health Service. Naturally, these lay members will have to accept the medical assessment of the risks and possible benefits of the experiments, but they could and should take part in the discussions that go on.
It is also desirable that the ethical committees should interest themselves in the methods by which these research projects are to be carried out, that they should see the written consent of the patient concerned, and that they should ensure that the same groups of patients are not used again and again.
I believe that, without hindering progress, an adequate number of lay members on ethical committees would end the danger of bad or wasteful experiments and would help to concentrate efforts and funds in the best possible way.
The House will see that this is quite a modest, but I believe an important, Bill. It provides a charter for patients which will reassure everybody who has to go into hospital, relatives and friends, and the public at large.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Charles Loughlin, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Frederick Willey, and Mr. Dick Leonard.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS BILL
  RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
  Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.17 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I observe that a member of the legal profession is moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I seek your guidance on the question of interests arising. I realise that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a Minister of the Crown, although in his ministerial function he appears in court with the Treasury Solicitor no doubt briefing him from time to time.
  I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying that throughout the whole of his professional life he has been totally dependent on solicitors and, indeed, is not allowed to receive a legal income from other persons except through solicitors, who are the subject of intimate concern of the Bill.
  Some weeks ago, through the Clerk of the House, I gave Mr. Speaker notice that I intended to raise this point of order if the necessary circumstances arose. It should be made quite plain that if, for example, we had a Nurses Bill, as we did a few years ago, we would not except a nurse to move its Second Reading in the House. It would not be impossible, because I believe there is a trained nurse among our colleagues. The same applies to other professions.
  There seems to be a strange belief relating to this particular profession not only that any question of interest should be forgotten, but that it should be reversed and, therefore, that Second Reading of the Bill should be moved by someone with an interest. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): As for speaking in the House, one would expect—and I am sure it will happen—that those who have interests will declare them. The question of voting may properly arise after someone has voted
  1488
  so I do not feel called upon at the moment to reply to that point.
  The Solicitor-General: It is true that I have the honour to hold the office of Solicitor-General but as the House knows I am a barrister and I say that merely to emphasise what has been perhaps misguidedly raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in his point of order. I do not stand here as a representative of the Law Society or the solicitors' profession. I speak for the Government because this is a Government Bill. We have inherited it from the Law Society and we have made a number of changes.
  Mr. English: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving way. I do not propose to persist in interrupting him. I hope that he will make it plain that the fact that this is a former Private Member's Bill which has been adopted as a Government Bill is a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government. As he is no doubt aware, the Leader of the House and his predecessor said that they would never make Government time and Government support available for a Private Member's Bill. That principle has now been broken. What is more, all this happens to be unnecessary because, as I understand it, the opponents of the Bill after three years have reached a measure of agreement with the Law Society upon it. This procedure is probably unnecessary but it nevertheless represents a breach of faith and I hope that fact will be made plain.
  The Solicitor-General: It may be almost a record in this House that I was stopped virtually before I had finished my first sentence. The reason this is now a Government Bill—as would be clear to anyone who had considered it—is that it was twice a Private Bill beginning in another place. However, it involves serious matters of public interest, particularly with regard to the fees which must be paid by solicitors to the Law Society in order to enable it to carry out its very important duties, it being very much in the public interest that it should. Any reduction in these fees would after a time have reduced, much to the public detriment, the duties and services rendered by the Law Society.
  We inherited the Bill from the Law Society and we made certain changes.

  1489
  In these we have had the constant and wholehearted co-operation of the Society, and I pay tribute to it for its initiative in originating most of the provisions in the Bill and its support given during the preparation of the Bill.
  The Bill started life twice as a Private Peer's Bill in another place. On each occasion it completed its progress there and when it came to this House it was objected to by certain hon. Members. Of course, they had every right to object to it. However, I believed at the time and I still believe that those objections were misguided. It appears, as may be gathered from what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, that they were seeking some element of lay participation in the process of dealing with complaints against solicitors. That, I suggest, was a matter more for debate than ultimatum.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is grossly unfair. Of course we would have raised the matter in debate had there been a Second Reading debate. I hope to speak today when there is such a debate. However, the Bill came on perpetually on a Friday at four o'clock when there was no opportunity for debate. That is the basic reason why the Bill was blocked.
  The Solicitor-General: We do not want to continue this for ever. I should have thought that the hon. Member would know that it would be in Committee that these alterations would be made. The Government well understand the complaints about those who appear to be judges in their own cause. The Law Society is a stern judge of its members but it still remains that the professional conduct of solicitors directly or indirectly concerns the public they serve. It is arguable that the public should have some say in determining issues of professional conduct and should make some contribution in formulating the standards which the profession ought to adopt for its wellbeing.
  I will come to that in more detail later, but Clause 9 demonstrates that the Government have accepted this argument because it provides for lay membership of the Disciplinary Tribunal which will replace the Disciplinary Committee, that being the forum which hears complaints against solicitors. I do not believe that
  1490
  it is necessary for me to deal with minor matters in the Bill today but I should be glad to deal with any points of substance on which hon. Members would like further explanation.
  I propose now to go through the various clauses emphasising the Bill's central theme—the furtherance of the public interest and the interest of the profession in the services which solicitors provide. Clauses 1 to 5 deal with admission of a solicitor and certain aspects of his practice. Clause 1 abolishes the rule prohibiting a foreign national from becoming or practising as a solicitor, he being almost unique in the professions in that respect. The fetters were imposed as a result of the Act of Settlement 1700 and it would seem to us—and the Bill represents this—that a foreign national should be qualified to practise a profession in this country. That proposition is recognised by the Monopolies Commission and in the European sphere by the Treaty of Rome so it seems that after some 273 years the bar to aliens who wish to practise the profession in this country will now be removed.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: On this most interesting point, will the Solicitor-General say whether there is a reciprocal provision in the Common Market countries for the admission of our nationals to their professions in a similar way? One would imagine that the Government would have sought this kind of arrangement. I know there is agreement in the Common Market Treaty about it but what steps have been taken to ensure that this takes effect?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member has caught me in a position in which I am unable to answer him now. I hope that he will be satisfied if I deal with that point when, with leave of the House, I wind up the debate.
  Clause 3 is important and I commend it most strongly. It removes the existing statutory maximum on the fee which every solicitor has to pay in taking out his annual practising certificate. From these fees the Law Society derives most of its revenue which makes it possible to provide the public and the profession with essential services, notably in legal education, law reform, the handling of complaints, resolving misunderstandings between solicitors and clients, certifying

  1491
  bills of costs for non-contentious work and so on. The present maximum of £20 was reached in 1970 and is entirely inadequate for the Society to continue its activities on their present scale. That was one of the reasons which pressed upon the Government the need to take over the conduct of the Bill in order that it should not be delayed again.
  If those activities were curtailed that would lead to serious disadvantages to the public, law reform and the general improvement of the solicitors' profession. The fact that the statutory maximum will be removed is not a matter of anxiety because the fee is fixed by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice and the amount therefore will be settled thereafter by the responsible authority. We may be confident that any increases that are inevitable will be fair to all concerned.
  Clause 4 merely enables all practising solicitors to act as if they were commissioners for oaths. It is based on a recommendation of the Law Society and it is heartily endorsed by the Lord Chancellor whom, incidentally, it relieves of the burdensome task of appointing commissioners individually and of the less burdensome task of collecting £10 on the appointment of each commission. It will be of great advantage to the public who are often inconvenienced by the difficulty of finding a commissioner, especially in country districts since the solicitor who is acting for the person who is making the affidavit may not be a commissioner for oaths.
  Clauses 6 to 8 concern the Law Society's powers to intervene in a solicitor's practice to deal with the compensation fund and the professional indemity insurance. Clause 6 introduces Schedule 1, the statutory provisions for the Law Society's intervention in the practice of those few solicitors who apparently are guilty of dishonesty, or where there has been undue delay or some similar failing. The provisions are highly complex but I hope that the House will find the arrangement in Schedule 1, with the division into two parts, helpful. It rationalises and clarifies the law in this difficult sphere.
  For example Part I of the schedule enables the Law Society to act on
  1492
  reasonable suspicion of dishonesty whereas it must now have a reasonable cause to believe. It also enables it to act when a solicitor has failed to comply with the statutory accounts rules or is bankrupt or in prison. It gives it certain powers to apply for a court order that a third party hand over documents in his possession relating to a defaulting solicitor's practice. That closes a loophole in the present law whereby dishonest solicitors—and fortunately there are very few—can evade the clutches of the Law Society by transferring papers to someone outside their firm.
  The compensation fund is the subject of Clause 7. It exists to help the unfortunate few who are damnified by the acts or omissions of dishonest or defaulting solicitors. There is a notable innovation in that when a grant from the fund is refused—and it must be remembered that the grants are discretionary—the reasons for the refusal must be stated. At present grants, if refused, would just be refused and no reasons would be given. A statutory discretion is now required, and that is a discretion which must be properly exercised. Therefore, a person will be able to look at it to see whether it is properly exercised. The removal of the statutory limit on contributions to the fund will also be found in the clause.
  A novel compulsory insurance is provided for in Clause 8. It is an insurance against professional negligence and other civil liabilities and not against dishonest solicitors. The victims of negligent solicitors can themselves have recourse only to the solicitor's pocket and not to the compensation fund. Unfortunately, some solicitors are inadequately insured, and a few are not insured at all. Clause 8 remedies that and makes flexible provisions for a variety of methods of compulsory insurance and appropriate sanctions against a solicitor who fails to comply with requirements which may be in force under the clause. It will be a matter for the Law Society, and the profession as a whole, to decide which of the various alternative methods they will prefer. In the end it will look after those few people who bring a successful action involving a sum which a solicitor is unable to meet by way of damages. The unfortunate litigent or client will still be recompensed in full.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I apprecithat under Clause 8 there will be power to compel insurance to be taken out and that this will provide cover for negligence provided that the solicitor has taken out insurance or has renewed it. But there are bound to be cases where for one reason or another that unfortunately has not happened. In those circumstances, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the compensation fund is limited? It rather looks as though if a solicitor is negligent but uninsured, the unfortunate client will have to whistle for his money and will not be able to call upon the compensation fund to reimburse him for his solicitor's negligent actions.
  The Solicitor-General: The compensation fund was set up by the profession to protect those who had suffered at the hands of dishonest solicitors, their clerks or any of their employees. The clause provides that there should be compulsory insurance to cover those cases in which a solicitor has been negligent and a claim against the solicitor has succeeded.
  There are three ways in which that may be done under Clause 8. There is the mutual fund, which is paragraph (a), the compulsory insurance which is taken out by the society on behalf of the profession which is paragraph (b), or the requirement for individual solicitors or firms to insure, which is paragraph (c). Either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) would cover the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has posed, but paragraph (c) would not. Those three alternatives have been provided for the Law Society to consider, with the profession as a whole, which they prefer. I have no doubt that if paragraph (c) were the one which was to be preferred the points which have already been made would be borne very much in mind.
  Clause 9 is important. In the Acts passed in 1888 and 1919 the Disciplinary Committee was created and given jurisdiction to deal with complaints against solicitors' professional misconduct and related matters. The committee consisted of past and present members of the Council of the Law Society, appointed by the Master of the Rolls. Originally it could report only to the court, but by the Act of 1919 it was given the power to strike solicitors off the roll or to suspend them from practice in
  1494
  appropriate cases. Those provisions were included in the Solicitors Act 1957.
  Jurisdiction generally has been extended considerably since 1919. Clause 9 has changed the Disciplinary Committee to a Disciplinary Tribunal. It was perhaps right to form a committee in 1888 when it had power only to report to the court. The committee will now be a tribunal and it will have an extended membership in that lay members, in the true sense, who are neither solicitors nor barristers, must be appointed. Solicitor members may include any solicitor of at least 10 years' standing.
  There will be a much wider range of solicitor members than now exists. There will also be lay members who must not have any legal qualifications. The committee has always been independent of the Law Society, being appointed by the Master of the Rolls. Under the provisions contained in Clause 9 the tribunal will remain independent of the Law Society. It is proposed that the lay members should be appointed by the Master of the Rolls. They will be paid out of public funds and not from Law Society funds, which might give at least some outward appearance of a connection.
  I am sure that the House will agree that lay members who are brought in to assist should be remunerated and should receive expenses. It must be that the public purse should bear the comparatively small cost which would be involved. Although every tribunal which sits to investigate a complaint about a solicitor must always have upon its board a lay member, such members will be a minority because it is proposed that the tribunal sitting to consider complaints shall consist of three people, two of them being solicitors. They may both be quite young or one may be senior and the other may have 11 or 12 years' experience as a solicitor. There will also be a lay member.
  Lay membership and the eligibility of the relatively young solicitor is an important and fundamental change. I say that without implying any criticism of the present system. The present Disciplinary Committee has a reputation as an impartial body. In my experience it has been a vigorous champion of high professional standards throughout its life. It is right now, from the public's point of view, that changes should be made.

  1495
  They were in a sense initiated by what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs on 17th May when he announced that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland proposed to discuss amendments. I understand that an answer was given to a Question today to the effect that similar provisions are proposed for Scotland.
  There is another outcome of this which has been foreshadowed in a newspaper article and in an article in the Law Society's Gazette. The tribunal's functions are principally judicial. But it also considers preliminary stages of complaints and there are a number of occasions when complaints are made which turn out to be more in the nature of negligence, or complaints which do not amount to misconduct—complaints nevertheless where the complainant is extremely distressed by what has happened and believes that his solicitor is to blame.
  It seems that a large number of such complaints arise from a misapprehension as to what the Law Society or the Disciplinary Committee can do. The Law Society has the Professional Purposes Committee. Its staff provides an excellent service to the public and is scrupulously fair in dealing with complaints. There is no doubt, and we must face this, that there are a number of occasions upon which complainants are dissatisfied with the manner in which their complaint has been disposed of—when a letter is received from the Law Society saying that the Professional Purposes Committee has investigated the matter and decided that no further action needs to be taken.
  The Government have agreed with the Law Society that even though this dissatisfaction may not be based on any justification it would be wrong to be complacent about it and to say, "This is the fact and the public must lump it." We do not think it is sufficient for the public simply to be assured that these complaints are misconceived and, when nothing further has been done, such complaints have been properly dealt with. We have again the comment that the Law Society appears in such cases to be a judge in its own cause.
  The Lord Chancellor has taken the view, all along with the co-operation of the Law Society, that the time has come
  1496
  for an independent lay element to be introduced into the Society's system for investigating complaints. What is proposed is that there should be what would be called a lay observer to review complaints in certain cases. The circumstances contemplated are as follows. A lay observer would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor to consider those cases in which the complainant is dissatisfied with the treatment of his complaint by the Law Society's Professional Purposes Committee and wishes the matter to receive further consideration. The lay observer's main task would be to consider whether the Society's handling of the complaint had been satisfactory. In discharging this task he would be given full access to the relevant papers.
  If, having looked at all the papers, the lay observer is satisfied with the way in which the complaint has been treated he will so inform the complainant. If he is dissatisfied he will be expected to communicate his views to the Law Society and, if he thinks it necessary, to recommend to the Society such further steps as he thinks it should take. For example, he may advise that the solicitor should be seen again, or ask for further explanations or that the matter should be expounded more fully to the complainant, or even that proceedings should be brought before the tribunal.
  The observer will be free, if he thinks fit, to take before the tribunal a complaint which the Law Society does not consider justifies disciplinary proceedings. The observer will be required to make an annual report of his activities to the Lord Chancellor. Again, so that there should be no suggestion of his acting as an agent or of there being any sort of link with the Law Society, it is proposed that the lay observer will be paid out of public funds.
  Mr. English: As the Solicitor-General will realise, this is of immense importance to me, since although it is in a different form to that which I suggested, this is really the ombudsman I have asked for over the past two or three years. May I ask why this is not in the Bill? The Law Society has mentioned this proposal and the Solicitor-General is now putting it forward. It seems that we are not agreed on the details, but these are Committee points. Is the hon. and learned Member

  1497
  giving us an assurance that this will be done in Committee? Not only is this not in the Bill but his last statement is not included in the Money Resolution. It seems that there will need to be an amendment of the Money Resolution. I take it that this will be moved in Committee because it is all very airy-fairy at the moment.
  The Solicitor-General: The lay observer will not be an ombudsman in the sense that we know at present. If we compare the duties which I have said will fall upon his shoulders and the circumstances in which he will investigate matters, the difference will be clear. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further at this stage.
  It has been considered whether this should be part of the Bill and decided, I think rightly, that it should not. It is an experimental suggestion at the moment, something which will have to be considered after it has been put into practice. It may need changes of all sorts. However it was written into the Bill it might be found, within a few months, that it was not working in quite the way in which the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor wanted it to work. It might not be quite as effective as it could be if there were a free hand to change it.
  The concessions made and the interest shown in this by my noble Friend makes it quite unnecessary that there should be express provisions in the Bill. As for the cost, which will not be very great, it will be borne out of the Lord Chancellor's Vote as an incidental expense relating to the administration of justice and therefore does not have to be included in the Money Resolution.
  These proposals have been made with the fullest co-operation from the Law Society. They are a considerable step forward. They are a recognition of the interest that the public has in those professions and occupations—we have had examples of others over the years—where the allegation is that the profession or occupation is the judge in its own cause. I invite the House to welcome the wholly novel idea of scrutiny by an independent and responsible layman on these occasions.
  1498
  I emphasise that it will not be the task of the observer to give rulings on professional conduct. That is a matter for the tribunal to which everyone, including the observer, will have access. Equally, the observer will have no jurisdiction to determine questions of professional negligence. These again—and this has led to some misunderstanding in the past—are matters for the court.
  But he may well wish to consider the kind of case in which the Law Society maintains that the complaint is one of negligence, for the court to deal with, and not one of professional conduct for the Society, and invites the complainant to exercise his or her remedy in the courts. It is possible to envisage occasions on which the observer might say to the Society, "I want you to reconsider this. It seems to me there is also an aspect of professional conduct here for the Society to consider and if necessary to send to the disciplinary tribunal."
  Clause 11 is a technical one putting beyond doubt the power of the Law Society to supply the Director of Public Prosecutions with information obtained under its statutory power concerning solicitors' accounts, which is obviously good sense and which will speed up investigation and inquiry in cases concerning dishonest solicitors. Clauses 12 to 14 are highly technical, dealing with costs and taxation. Unless the House wishes me I will not deal with them in more detail. They are amendments which are designed to assist the client rather than the solicitor, save in one case. In the past a solicitor in non-contentious business had to get his costs taxed. Nowadays that will not be necessary unless the client raises objection—except in cases of infants and those under a disability.
  The schedules contain the various consequential and minor amendments. The Bill makes a number of major changes in the duties and obligations of the Law Society as well as increasing its income. I invite the House to approve it.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I suppose that my credentials to speak on the Bill will meet with the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I am not a solicitor and I am not a barrister, but it was thought by my colleagues that it was

  1499
  desirable that a layman's point of view on the Bill should be put from the Opposition Front Bench.
  The two forerunners of the Bill ran into trouble. They were Private Members' Bills. As we all know, the House treats Private Members' Bills abominably. Such Bills frequently run out of time or are blocked by noisy or persistent minorities' and other diverse wickednesses can be inflicted on them. Therefore, I do not complain that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill of their own.
  The Bill contains some important recommendations, many of which will be better discussed in Committee. However, we should not give an impression, as I rather think the Solicitor-General did, that we are legislating by leave of the Law Society. We are grateful for the Law Society's co-operation and help but I do not like the phrase "inheritance from the Law Society". I hope that it is not a Law Society Bill. It is a Government Bill, and it is no less important for that.
  My qualifications, if I can call them such, for taking part in the debate are that after years of very hard study and frequent exposition I qualified for the unique status in the eyes of the Law Society of a well-informed layman. In the course of broadcasting for over 10 years on the BBC "Can I Help You?" programme I wandered into most interesting human affairs, including divorce, marriage, bastardy, landlord and tenant matters, noise, nuisance—the lot.
  In the course of that I studied Hill and Redmans "Law of Landlord and Tenant", Wills's "Workmen's Compensation"—a book recently called into use by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in another connection—"Williams on Wills", McGarry on "The Rent Acts" and many other works. The question then arose as to whether I was purporting to give legal advice, especially in the voluminous correspondence I had from listeners at the time. Three qualities of my work came under professional criticism: first that it was free, second that it was clear, and third that, on the whole, it was better advice than was available on some matters from a then depleted profession. All were serious criticisms to make of a well-informed layman.
  1500
  After much negotiation with the BBC I was flattered to receive notice that I had been graded by the Law Society as a well-informed layman, and I was permitted to live up to my reputation. Those are my credentials. Over the years I received probably thousands of letters from citizens on legal matters and in particular their relations with solicitors.
  The Bill is partly intended to remove out-of-date limitations upon the entry to the profession and upon what I describe as union contributions. Secondly it is intended to provide better consumer protection. That second object is the important part of the Bill. The limitations on entry which are to be removed have been mentioned by the Solicitor-General. They include the prohibition on non-British subjects being admitted as solicitors. I do not think that the Solicitor-General mentioned the removal of the condition that a candidate must be morally fit to be a solicitor of the Supreme Court. The term "moral fitness" in previous legislation is to be substituted by a reference to an applicant's character, his fitness and his suitability to be a solicitor. This is a more realistic and appropriate test of fitness. We should not get involved with moral issues in considering the suitability of a person for appointment as a solicitor.
  I am sure I can say that the Trades Union Congress is fully in support of the provision in Clause 3 which removes the statutory limitation on union dues. At present the dues can be fixed by the Law Society with judicial consent but shall not exceed £20 a year. This limitation is a grave embarrassment to the Law Society. If it is not removed the society will become bankrupt. It will not be able to function on that miserable contribution, which at present is the maximum prescribed by law. The Bill leaves the fee under the control of the judges, but subject to that judicial control there is no maximum.
  Clause 5 contains an interesting change in the law. Apparently if a solicitor asked for his name to be restored to the roll, it having been removed at his own request, he had to apply to the disciplinary committee. It was an indignity that he had to go before the disciplinary committee, before which he had not previously appeared, to have his name put

  1501
  back on the roll. The Bill provides for the name to be put back by application to the society.
  I turn now to some elements of consumer protection, beginning with that which relates to the greater convenience of the public and which is in Clause 4. It enables practising solicitors to act as if they were commissioners for oaths without appointment as such. This will remove a serious grievance which many citizens have had in scouting around to find a commissioner for oaths. They have gone into a solicitor's office only to be told "We are not commissioners for oaths. We cannot help". A caller who asks where the nearest commissioner for oaths is may be told to take a 24 bus, get off at Trafalgar Square and look around, as it is believed that there is a commissioner for oaths in that area. People cannot understand this.
  What do commissioners for oaths have that other solicitors do not have? No one has ever offered an explanation, except that some solicitors have licences to be commissioners for oaths while others have not. Some solicitors may not want the bother of being commissioners for oaths. When a citizen with an affidavit or declaration that he wishes to sign and declare before a commissioner for oaths pops in to the office and asks "Can I swear to this document?" it can be a disruption of other work, but a commissioner for oaths is under an obligation to provide that service.
  I hope that one inconvenience will not be replaced by another. The clause enables but does not require a solicitor to act as a commissioner for oaths. I hope that there will not be a great deal of contracting out of acting as commissioners for oaths because solicitors find the function a little too much trouble and not sufficiently remunerative.
  The position could be worse if, instead of scouting around for a commissioner for oaths and knowing that when one found him he would do the job, one now had to scout around for a solicitor who would act as a commissioner for oaths. I hope that the Law Society will impress upon solicitors the desirability of their acting as commissioners for oaths under the power the clause will give them.
  Clause 8 deals with professional indemnity, which is very important. It confers new powers on the Law Society, which, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, may make rules requiring payments to be made by solicitors for the provision of indemnity to meet liability for professional negligence. At present solicitors may take out insurance voluntarily, rely on their own resources to meet any award of damages against them, or simply neglect to have insurance or resources and be men of straw when the eventuality occurs. It is important that solicitors are properly covered for indemnity against actions for damages.
  Clause 6 deals with the Law Society's powers of intervention in the affairs of solicitors, the compensation fund and so on. Those powers are fairly drastic. When the society has reason to suspect dishonesty by a solicitor, it can move in in a rather drastic fashion. Even in cases of complaint of undue delay, it will have powers under Schedule 1 to look into the affairs of the solicitor complained of.
  I think that the main cause of complaint against solicitors is delay. It is infrequently negligence. The cause of delay is often overwork and the interruption of the rhythm of activity by urgent cases with which solicitors are asked to deal. Very few solicitors in practice are in command of the rhythm or volume of their workload.
  A number of people complain about the time solicitors take to wind up estates and to deal with matters referred to them. Clients often do not understand the volume of work and the difficulty of completing the task in hand. The Bill provides that the powers of intervention shall apply, with certain reservations, to cases of undue delay.
  The qualifications to the rather drastic rights of intervention are found on page 13 and in line 40 on page 16. In cases of suspected dishonesty the Law Society could, in certain circumstances, require a solicitor's mail to be redirected so that he does not have the opportunity to handle mail which would normally come to him. That right of intervention does not apply in the case of undue delay. The Law Society should have positive rights of intervention where the complaint is of serious delay.
  The present limit of £10 as the annual contribution to the compensation fund is removed. The proposals about the fund appear to remove distinctions between provisions governing the two types of grant that can be made under the fund. The first concerns loss incurred through the dishonesty of a solicitor. The second is made on the ground of hardship, when a grant can be made without proof of dishonesty, where there is simple failure to account for moneys received. Even where there is no financial loss to the client, serious hardship could be caused by default. Clause 7 brings the two types of compensation within the same discipline.
  Before coming to Clauses 9 and 10, I want to refer to a matter which would have been relevant to the Bill if a clause in an earlier version of the Bill had been carried forward into the present Bill. Clause 7 of the 1972 Bill, dealing with the restriction on practice as a solicitor, has been left out, because it was transferred to the Administration of Justice Act 1973, of which it forms Section 4. That clause extended somewhat the right of a practising solicitor who is a justice of the peace to sit as a magistrate in a petty sessional area in which he does not ordinarily practise. I understand that that was an extension of the right of a solicitor to act as a magistrate.
  Section 4 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 states:
  "Where the area for which a solicitor is a justice of the peace is divided into petty sessional divisions, his being a justice for the area shall not subject him or any partner of his to any disqualification under this section in relation to proceedings before justices acting for a petty sessional division for which he does not ordinarily act."
  In my experience as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, however, I came across serious disquiet among members of the Bar at having on the bench a solicitor from whom barristers could and did receive instructions. It was possible for them to be appearing in court where on the bench sat a solicitor who in other cases was their instructing solicitor. They did not like it. Neither did I. As I happened to be, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the appointing authority for all magistrates in the County Palatine, I was able to decide for myself whether it was appropriate
  1504
  for a solicitor to be appointed a magistrate.
  I believe that it is not a good thing to mix up the law and the lay magistracy. I would have preferred to see a disqualification of solicitors from being magistrates. I believe that the place of the lawyer is in the well of the court, not on the bench. I realise that that might deprive the bench of the great advantage of the intellect and experience of many solicitors. Nevertheless, we pride ourselves on having a lay magistracy. It would be desirable not to extend the right of solicitors to act as magistrates but rather to restrict that right.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act 1974.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Houghton: I come to the disciplinary tribunal. From a consumer point of view, this is perhaps the most important clause of the Bill. The Solicitor-General explained that the disciplinary committee is converted into a solicitors' disciplinary tribunal. The membership is enlarged. It extends to solicitors of not less than 10 years' standing and provides for lay members who are neither solicitors nor barristers and whose fees will be met from public funds.
The interests of the profession are adequately safeguarded. The tribunal will have on it a majority of solicitors, but at least one lay member must be present. For cases, three members—two solicitors and one lay member—constitute the tribunal: there must be a lay member.
This is an advance on previous proposals, and it is to be welcomed. Lay members are put there to safeguard the public interest as well as the professional interest. The prevalent idea, to which

1505
the Solicitor-General referred, is that professional men stick together and will not go against their own kind. We cannot get rid of this idea, because people think that this is how it is. We have to dispel this, I believe, false idea of what professional men do.
That will be best done by the intervention of the laity into the mysteries of professional life. It can be best dispelled by having non-professional members of the tribunal. I do not say that it is essential for this purpose to have a majority of lay members on the tribunal. I think that one watchdog is enough, as long as he will bark ; and if he is not satisfied with the way the tribunal works he can always resign, because his professional life is not at stake: he is a lay member ; he is a free man.
Therefore, although I would have liked to see a tribunal a little more strongly manned by the layman, nevertheless I would not make an issue of the constitution now proposed. We will see how it works out. It is a valuable precedent. I am not aware that this has yet been done in any other profession, though I may be wrong.
Mr. English: It has been done with the Press Council.
Mr. Houghton: Then I think that it should be extended, for all sorts of reasons.
What is proposed in the Bill in that connection has a message to others. Some of us take the view that it is undesirable for a trade union, for example, to have the sole right of discipline over a member against whom misconduct or other default has been alleged when that trade union can, by exercising its disciplinary right, deprive him of the right to follow his occupation. That is a very severe power for any body to have. This is indeed what the disciplinary committee used to have but now the disciplinary committee does not have it in that form because the tribunal takes its place and upon the tribunal there is to be lay or outside representation.
So the message here is to the trade unions also that, when dealing with disciplinary matters involving the possibility of depriving a member of his membership of the union, which would seriously impede
1506
or indeed prevent his following his normal occupation, they should contemplate involving a lay person in the consideration.
When such a concept is mentioned to the trade unions they say "But the doctors do not have this. The lawyers do not have this. The accountants do not have this. Why should we be thought to be less capable of taking an impartial and judicial view of misconduct than the professional bodies?" Here is the message in the Bill as regards the profession of solicitors.
I come to the point which the Solicitor-General mentioned towards the end of his speech regarding the appointment of a lay observer. There is nothing in the Bill about the matter of referral to the tribunal. The lay element comes into play only when cases get to the tribunal. The lay members of the tribunal have no connection with the power of the society's professional purposes committee to refer cases to the tribunal.
I was surprised that the Solicitor-General said it was the Government's view that the proposal to have a lay observer to look at the process of referral, if necessary, before cases get to the tribunal or at cases that are not to be referred to the tribunal was not to be put in the Bill because it was desirable to have experience of this experiment. The Law Society has been conducting its own experiment on this matter over the last 12 months. In those circumstances the Solicitor-General was entitled to be bolder about this proposition, because the experiment had taken place and there is confidence in it.
We know that the proposed lay observer is not an ombudsman, but he would be able to see the papers ; he would be able to express an opinion upon the merits of the case ; he would be able to recommend further steps of explanation to the complainant client or to recommend that the case should be referred to the tribunal. He would be an influential person, as I have no doubt he already is in connection with decisions on complaints which are not referred to the tribunal.
However, these and other points are suitable for discussion in Committee. I emphasise that in all these matters we must seek to strengthen the confidence

1507
of the citizen in the profession of solicitor.
As the Solicitor-General said, however unjustified the suspicions may be we must try to remove them and provide against the currency of the belief that professional men are birds of a feather or, as Shaw once put it,
"Professional bodies are a conspiracy against society."
That notion should be dispelled.
Perhaps one day we may have a more comprehensive system for the establishment of civil rights. I have heard of a proposal for a civil rights commission which would deal with the various aspects of the appeal of the citizen against bureaucracy, against authority and against those in whom the public place their trust and who occupy a special position protected by the law. No public complaints of the behaviour of solicitors should be completely disposed of within a closed shop. That is my point. It is the point in favour of the lay observer coming into the Bill and of starting him off with statutory authority. The influence of the more objective viewpoints should be brought to bear or be available at every stage when dealing with complaints. Matters of discipline are, of course, to be dealt with by the tribunal.
Solicitors are rightly trusted by the public. They are given by law rights and privileges denied to others and they are protected against impostors, sea lawyers and well-informed laymen. They occupy an exclusive position. They have high standing in society, they are respected for integrity and knowledge. On the whole, the responsibilities and trustworthiness that go with this position are borne with distinction and honour.
We have probably as good a solicitor profession as any country in the world. We are entitled to ask in return for a high standard of professional knowledge, skill and promptitude in business, and when criticisms of undue delay and professional misconduct are alleged against a member of the profession its members should not claim to be complete masters in their own house. This is not a freemasonry—it is a work force, a public and social service which is employed and protected by the public. That calls for a full sense of public responsibility. The Bill moves
1508
several steps towards its achievement and I hope that it will be possible to advance a little further before the Bill leaves this House.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As one who in the past has expressed criticism of the way in which the Law Society has dealt with complaints against solicitors, I feel bound to give a cautious general welcome to the main provisions of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General showered many bouquets on the Law Society which, I believe with all due respect, it does not deserve, especially in respect of complaints against solicitors. The treatment of complaints by the Law Society is a cause of widespread and acute dissatisfaction among ordinary citizens. I fell sure, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill must represent steps in the right direction. I know personally of cases in which the treatment of complaints by the Law Society has been quite appalling. I hope, therefore, that the new provisions will ensure that such cases do not arise again.
I am interested in the new provisions, especially in relation to the lay observer, but I shall reserve my personal consideration for them to a more appropriate stage. However, I wish to draw attention to Clause 2 which seems to me to be quite extraordinary. It is a big psychological error by the Law Society to propose to delete the requirement as to moral fitness at a time when apparently the Law Society is endeavouring to be even stricter concerning cases of dishonesty among the profession. It is a profession of trust. Therefore why, in this of all the provisions, do we need to remove the reference to the morals of its members? It seems to me to be a sinister provision, almost a confession by the Law Society of its failure to maintain moral standards among its members. I find it objectionable. I hope that there will be second thoughts about it.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I am grateful that the Bill is now being introduced by the Government. There is a long history attached to my interest in the matter. It arose originally from constituency cases, and, as many hon. Members have said before this debate we have all had constituency cases of complaints against solicitors.

1509
Invariably complaints raise a series of problems. If one has a complaint against a member of some other profession—say an accountant or a doctor—one can go to a solicitor quite readily for his advice. But it is an undoubted fact that some solicitors do not wish to take cases which are brought against another solicitor. I am quite aware that, if approached, the Law Society will find a solicitor for a complainant who wishes to bring an action of negligence, but often people do not realise this. They may go to a solicitor who turns them down and then they think that all solicitors will turn them down, which is not true. However, such an impression can be created.
There are undoubtedly cases of difficulty. The first which brought the matter to my attention was that of a retired business man who decided to build himself a bungalow for himself and his wife to retire to. When he found that he had been paying money and his bungalow was not being built, he went to his solicitor to get something done. Being a retired business man, when he discovered that nothing happened he became suspicious. He recollected that the solicitor concerned was the man who had recommended the builder to him. He looked up the firm of builders and discovered that the sleeping partner in the business was his own solicitor, who obviously was not too keen on pressurising the recalcitrant builder.
Since that example came to my attention the Law Society has changed its rules on conflict of interest between members. At one time there were practically no restrictions on such conflicts, which was reprehensible and which the Law Society has to a degree recongised to be such.
I had discussions with officers of the Law Society at that time and discovered more about complaints that worried me. In the layman's eyes a complaint against a solicitor or any other person might not be something about which it is necessary to go to court. I believe that the Law Society does a good job with the criminal solicitors and the solicitor who needs expelling from the profession. That has never been the real basis of my concern. What has been my concern is what, in terms we put into the Parliamentary Commissioner Act in
1510
relation to the Ombudsman, one might call maladministration.
We are all human beings. We are all fallible. We can all lose papers or forget something that should have been done on 30th May only to find suddenly that it is June. None of these things is odious. There is nothing reprehensible in saying that a solicitor makes a mistake, just as the rest of us make mistakes from time to time. But these were the things that the Law Society was doing least about.
If one told the Law Society that one's solicitor had stolen some money, it would quickly and expertly deal with the matter. If the complaint were justified, the solicitor would be dealt with in the appropriate way by the disciplinary tribunal. But if a complainant said that his solicitor had made a mistake and that as a result he had suffered delay or financial loss, the Law Society would say, "That is nothing to do with us. Your solicitor is not engaged in malpractice. You should get another solicitor to sue the first one for negligence."
Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend will be aware of the new provisions in relation to small claims which are supposed to, and I think for the most part do, cut out these formalities. It is not necessary for a party to be represented in such proceedings before a registrar in the county court.
Mr. English: I was coming to this point, but my hon. Friend forgets that I am relating the history of the Bill and of my interest in it. He will be aware that the system he has described did not exist when the first of these Bills was brought forward. Before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber, I think, the Solicitor-General was accusing some of us of having been misguided. I hope to show that our misguidedness has achieved considerable results in the content of this Bill and elsewhere.
At the time of the first of these Bills, one was told that one's only recourse if a solicitor had made a mistake was to recruit another solicitor and sue him for negligence. This was monstrous. By a relatively quick and simple procedure the Law Society would investigate a complaint of actual crookery yet the whole panoply of the law had to be used to

1511
suggest to a solicitor that he had made a mistake and owed a client financial compensation—which would be paid out of his insurance, as I thought
I discovered at the time that there was some difficulty in insuring solicitors against negligence. That is one of the provisions in this Bill. It is interesting that it was not in the first Bill—although it was in the second and is now in the third. I pointed out to the Law Society that if insurance companies would not insure against possible claims, there was a simple answer on the analogy of the Road Traffic Acts. No one ever fails to find somebody prepared to insure his car if he is legally permitted to drive at all. The reason goes back as far as the 1920s and it is that the Road Traffic Acts empowered the Minister of Transport, as he then was, to insure in default of another insurer being found. I presume that the Secretary of State for the Environment now has that power. As a result, insurance companies insure. They do not want to lose their business to the State, so they make sure, even in some cases at a loss, that they insure everyone who is legally allowed to drive.
I suggested to the Law Society that, if one of its problems was the difficulty of insuring against what I call mistakes but what legal terminology refers to as negligence—it is arguable whether they are the same—they should simply include in the next Solicitors Bill a clause containing similar provisions. I agree with the Solicitor-General that there are different ways of doing this. One of the more essential things is not only to make it possible but to make sure that insurance companies see that it is desirable for them to insure solicitors against their own mistakes.
That is satisfactory and that is one clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and I managed to have included in the second Bill. However, it still did not contain provisions which are now in this Bill, so we objected to that one, too. We wished to do so courteously, so several back benchers of both parties met representatives of the Law Society, both its officers and the members of its Council, chairmen of its relevant committees, to discuss again various possibilities.
1512
At the time, during the whole of last Session—the Solicitor-General knows that he and I also discussed the matter personally—there seemed to be no movement at all. My back-bench Friends and I are reasonable men who are prepared to negotiate reasonably, but the only response we received was, "No, we will not alter this Bill from what it is". That Bill as it was last Session is now altered and the proof is before us today. It could have been done more easily.
As a result, it contains what my right hon. Friend has correctly stressed—the interesting provision relating to lay members of the disciplinary tribunal. I think my right hon. Friend misheard my intervention earlier. I did not say that this was the first profession for which this had been done, but that there was a precedent in the Press Council. Of course, the Press Council's duties, although not dissimilar, are certainly not exactly the same or even exactly like those of the disciplinary tribunal. It certainly has no power—although it can suggest it—to say that someone should not be an editor or a journalist because of some dastardly thing that he has done. So it is a precedent with a distinction.
Then, in the Law Society's Gazette to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I saw details of this interesting provision for a lay observer. I had suggested to the Law Society that there should be what might be termed an ombudsman. I did not mind that he was to be a layman, although I had thought that a solicitor who was not practising might be better, on the analogy of the Parliamentary Commissioner who is a civil servant who has ceased to be a departmental civil servant.
In the Parliamentary Commissioner's last annual report—not the one that he has just published and which is still being printed but his report for 1972—he refers to just over 570 complaints raised by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. I believe that he has a staff of about 90 to investigate and deal with those complaints. I do not suggest that the majority of the complaints are justifiable ; they are not. But they are thoroughly investigated by a substantial staff.

1513
I understand from its officers that the Law Society has about 5,000 complaints brought directly to its doors in Chancery Lane. I imagine that there are probably quite a few more scattered about the countryside which are abortively given to other solicitors—"Would you sue my previous solicitor for me?"—and which die a natural death. To deal with those 5,000 complaints, which is, perhaps, eight or nine times the number of complaints against the Civil Service and Government of the United Kingdom, it has a staff which is the reverse of what is required. In round terms to deal with nearly 10 times as many complaints, the society has perhaps one-tenth of the staff. I am talking not of complaints of crookery, with which it deals very adequately, but about the bulk of complaints, which are not of that sort. The Law Society cannot claim that it is dealing as adequately with complaints against solicitors as we are now dealing with complaints against the Civil Service and members of the hospital service.
In the discussions which we had last year the Law Society put a very good answer to me, which I accept. It said that it could not afford to do so and that the Exchequer had more money than the society. That is a fair point. The Solicitor-General has now conceded this point. He is saying that the lay members of the Disciplinary Tribunal and the lay observer should be paid by the Exchequer. So they should. But what he is not saying is that this provision, which is slightly different from my original suggestion—again, to save money, I suspect—which we have been told by everyone is not actually in the Bill, has to a certain extent been worked out. It is a mysterious, vague, amorphous provision.
We are told that the lay observer will be slightly different in that he will not be an ombudsman who can deal with complaints in the first instance but will be a lay observer who can deal with complaints on appeal. If one takes one's complaint to the Law Society, the Professional Purposes Committee will look at it or, possibly, get one of its grossly-overworked staff to look at it. If one does not like the result of that, one can go to the lay observer.
1514
That is all well and good, but I do not know who will take on that job. Any lay observer faced with the fact that he knows that the Law Society has nothing like the proportion of staff to complaints that the ombudsman has, ought to accept every such appeal because, at the first instance, it must be true of the overwhelming majority of complaints raised with the Law Society that they are not dealt with adequately. I say that in the sense that they are not dealt with as adequately as we now believe that com-paints against even servants of the Crown should be dealt with.
I do not know how the lay observer will interpret his function. Presumably he will interpret it by saying that the whole standard of dealing with complaints must be much lower because there are nearly 10 times as many complaints as there are against the Civil Service and nearly 10 times fewer staff, so it must be proportionately lower—roughly 100 times lower. That is an exaggeration, but it is bound to be some measure of the truth.
It was for precisely that reason that I asked the Minister why this was not in the Bill. I want to ask him again. I hope that if he speaks again, with the leave of the House, he will explain this matter to me. When I had my last discussion with the Law Society, only last week, I understood that it had no objection to the lay observer provision becoming part of this legislation. On that understanding I said that as I understood it—I could not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I have spoken to him since—I believed that backbenchers of the House who have hitherto objected to these Bills would withdraw their opposition ; and that this was now very satisfactory. I believe that my hon. Friend now shares the view that it would have been satisfactory.
However, the Solicitor-General says that it cannot be in the Bill. He says that we can deal with all these matters in Committee but that this provision cannot be in the Bill—so we cannot deal with it in Committee. I do not blame the Solicitor-General personally. I can only suggest that it is that crusty Tory, the Lord Chancellor, who is literally a conservative with a small "c" in almost any matter connected with the profession,

1515
who has said, "We dare not put this in the Bill because if we do people will want to look at it exactly and it may cost the Treasury money for a bigger staff for this lay observer" and so on. I hope that that is not the reason and that the Solicitor-General will say so.
It seems to be a disgrace that on something which is most necessary, where the Law Society through no fault of its own but simply because it does not have sufficient resources is at its weakest in dealing with complaints, this provision of a lay observer has been omitted. The Law Society is prepared to agree to it. It has taken three years of negotiation. I give the Law Society credit, because on every point raised by hon. Members it has gone to some trouble to agree with their point of view, although not necessarily entirely.
We are all reasonable men who are happy with half a loaf rather than none in our job. The Law Society has done extremely well. As I understand it, the Law Society is prepared to see this lay observer provision, which is the last of the several things that we wanted in the Bill. Now only the Government are blocking it. Does the House realise that if this Bill had been a Private Member's Bill, as it was last year, it would have gone through on the nod because no one would have objected to it? It would have had the lay observer provision in it because that is what all of us want. But now although the Law Society, formerly in opposition to this provision, is not now, it is still not in the Bill merely because it is a Government Bill.
I can only think that it is the Lord Chancellor who is at the back of this matter. It is an extraordinary thing to do. I am happy to let the Bill go through peacefully if an assurance is given that this provision will be put into the Bill at the Committee stage. I hope that the scope of the Bill will enable hon. Members to move that such a provision be included, but I do not know that that is so. Having looked at the Money Resolution I am certain that its scope will not enable us to do it. That is why it will be done in some mysterious way out of the other appropriations of the Lord Chancellor.
All this is an endeavour to hide an excellent proposal under a mat. If one
1516
wants to hide something away, one must have a reason. The reason is that it is just a front, a beautiful bluff to say that the Government are doing something. But on looking at it one realises that it is just a genie out of a bottle that has come like a puff of smoke and that it is not real.
If the Solicitor-General will not give this assurance I shall have to consult my hon. Friends and it may be that there will be a Division. I hope, Mr. Speaker, if you are in the Chair later and there is a Division, that you will convey the interesting ruling that Mr. Deputy Speaker gave earlier upon my point of order about interests. There are rules relating to the interests of Members who are voting which are different from the rules relating to the interests of Members who are speaking. I hope that those Members who have interests will be warned if there is a Division to consider whether they should vote.
However, if the Solicitor-General will give the assurance that the provision about the lay observer will be introduced by him in Committee, I would give him the assurance that the Bill will go through on the nod. Otherwise, I cannot give that assurance.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I must first declare my interest. I am a solicitor. I am a member of the Law Society. I am a joint secretary of the all-party Solicitors' Group with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). I am also a commissioner for oaths. That is a broad, comprehensive declaration.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: And a Socialist.
Mr. Davis: I am a Socialist and a member of the Labour Party, which perhaps is even more important.
It has been alleged by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), more guardedly on this occasion than on others, that the Law Society is somewhat uncaring about the aggrieved lay client. It is right that impression should be dispelled, because I know of no other profession in which the lay client has the same comprehensive protection, for example, in the taxation of a bill or in requiring the Law Society's certificate

1517
of the fairness of a bill. That allegation is quite wrong and should not be made.
It is alleged that the Law Society has not given proper attention to complaints of lay clients. Again, that is wrong. That allegation was partially dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who said that in litigation affecting solicitors the Law Society can appoint a solicitor when other members of the profession may be unwilling to act. My experience is that it is far more common to find a solicitor prepared to undertake litigation of this kind than it is to find doctors prepared to give evidence against another doctor in matters of professional negligence, or architects prepared to give evidence against their professional brothers.
Mr. English: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one reason is that it is all a matter of circumstances? Does he not agree that an accusation that a professional person has made a mistake might be dealt with more easily if it were regarded not as a matter for action for negligence in a court but as a matter to be dealt with by, say, an ombudsman, in the general sense of the word, as a simple statement of mistake with an independent person available to arbitrate on whether or not there was a mistake?
Mr. Davis: I am a little concerned about that proposition because I believe that the courts are the right forum for determining questions of compensation. If one niggles at that proposition, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. That proposition would certainly be wrong for the medical profession, which presumably would be asked to undertake a similar arrangement to that envisaged for the solicitors' profession. I am assured that my hon. Friends are not suggesting that the solicitors' profession should be isolated.
In matters of signal importance, where substantial damages are at issue, it would be wrong to remove a determination of some issues from the jurisdiction of the court. One might ask what is the purpose of law courts if everything is to be dealt with by tribunals.
There is a case for dealing with minor matters by this form of tribunal,
1518
although the point I made during my intervention has not been answered. Through the new procedures that are available for arbitration in the county courts, it is possible for minor matters to be properly resolved without formality, and that is a significant advance.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I think that my hon. Friend is just about to deal with the number of complaints that are made to the Law Society and the manner in which they are dealt with. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred to 5,000 complaints. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that matter.
Mr. Davis: I want to deal with the points as they arise. I am not here as an apologist for the Law Society, although I admire the way in which the Law Society has given its attention to the matters raised by my hon. Friends and has been as helpful as possible to the Government in producing a progressive piece of legislation.
The hon. Member for Orpington opposes the deletion of the words "moral fitness". Having heard him speak on this sort of issue before, I expected it of him. He says that it is all terribly sinister. But it is not the job of the Law Society, in determining an application for membership of the profession, to be a judge of morals. Where would one end? After all, the virility of a proposed solicitor is not of general interest to the public at large. If someone who applies for membership of the profession is found to be mentally unfit or suffering from some similar disability, the Law Society should have power to refuse that application. It does not have that power at present. The hon. Gentleman has ignored that.
As a commissioner for oaths I very much welcome Clause 4. It is sometimes inconvenient to find commissioners for oaths, and people are put to a great deal of trouble in swearing affidavits. So long as it is necessary to go through the pantomime of swearing affidavits and paying fees to commissioners for oaths for that purpose, it is right that the commissioners should be more widely available. The Lord Chancellor still retains a right of veto to the appointment of commissioners for oaths.

1519
I turn to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West relating to complaints, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is deeply concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said that there were only five people at the Law Society dealing with 5,000 complaints.
Mr. English: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Davis: I do not want to quote my hon. Friend incorrectly, but my information is that there are 35 people dealing with 4,300 complaints.
Mr. English: Only last week I was told that the number of complaints was 5,000. If someone has since counted them and found only 4,300, or if one figure relates to a different year, I accept that entirely. I quoted the figure that I was given only last week by an official of the Law Society. I am glad to hear that the staff has grown considerably since I first inquired into it. I did not say there were as few as five. I said they numbered about one-tenth of the ombudsman's staff. The ombudsman has about 90 people to deal with 570 complaints, whereas the Law Society has about 35 people to deal with 4,300. My hon. Friend has not in any way ruined my argument.
Mr. Davis: Surely the point of substance is that innumerable complaints made to the Law Society have no firm basis and are unsifted. It is immediately apparent to people who examine them that there is no real basis for complaint in such cases. As far as the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned, all his complaints are in the first place sifted by Members of Parliament, and by and large they relate to matters of considerably greater substance.
I very much welcome, as I am sure do the overwhelming number of solicitors, the extension of the provisions on the compensation fund and the new provisions that remain to be worked out on professional indemnity. I urge the Solicitor-General to take very much into account the point of substance that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) concerning the situation where a solicitor, perhaps through no major fault
1520
of his own, may not be insured, and where the lay client may have suffered loss. It is only right that the lay client should have recourse either to the insurance fund or to the compensation fund. There should be no lacuna, and I am sure that it would be the desire of the Law Society and of the Government that the situation should be dealt with as rapidly as possible. The present difficulty is that the most appropriate scheme to carry out compulsory professional indemnity has not been worked out.
I turn to Clause 9 and the disciplinary tribunal. It is right that we should pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West and Erith and Crayford, who for many years have proclaimed the need to have a lay element in this respect, and I would not wish to be churlish in offering praise where it is due. I do not know to what degree my hon. Friends' perseverance has led to it, but the fact is that the Law Society has taken a reasonable line on that aspect of the matter. As an experiment it undertook for 18 months to have a lay person involved in the investigation procedure to give greater credibility to the way in which the Law Society attends to complaints. I hope that, just as the Law Society has been the pathfinder in this respect, other professions will respond equally. All too often solicitors—indeed, all lawyers—are condemned as being unscrupulous and uncaring of the lay client's needs and requirements. The way in which the Law Society has dealt with the Bill indicates that that is a quite wrong impression, in just the same way as hon. Members of the House sometimes carry with them a degree of obloquy which is undeserving. And if one is a Member of Parliament and a lawyer, that is regarded as going just too far!
I am pleased to see that Clause 13 extends protection to clients in the taxation of costs. The time scale was too short, and the effect of the provisions will simplify the situation and also give added protection. I am sure that this is something which the House as a whole will support.
I come finally to Clause 14.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: The substance of the difference between those who support the Bill

1521
and those who oppose it relates to the question of the ombudsman as against the disciplinary tribunal. The disciplinary tribunal insists that there shall be a majority of solicitors present at the hearing but that one person should be a lay person. My hon. Friend has not argued the contrary case as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Can we be told why the legal profession does not want an ombudsman in place of the procedures laid down in the Bill? I have not made up my mind on this point ; I am simply trying to find out the situation.
Mr. Davis: This point was dealt with in the Solicitor-General's speech.
Mr. Loughlin: I was not here.
Mr. Davis: I take the view that it would be wrong simply to have a situation where an entirely lay element in the investigation should be the sole arbiter over what can be extremely complicated issues in respect of which a member of the profession involved—whether it be the solicitor's profession or any other—will have some expert knowledge. In my view, expert knowledge is absolutely essential in determining so many of the issues that come before a disciplinary tribunal. Sometimes difficulties and complexities arise.
Mr. English: I wanted a solicitor ombudsman.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West says that he wants a solicitor's ombudsman, but I am sure that would not be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). This is an experimental situation, and one looks to the future with great interest to see how the situation will develop. It is not right to come to final conclusions, and I await the results with great interest.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The point about the ombudsman is important, but may I try to point out the real issue before us? All disciplinary tribunals in all professions are dealt with by the professions themselves. This applies to the Army, the defence forces, the Bar, valuers, doctors or dentists or even the Civil Service. The
1522
point is that one should be tried by one's peers in disciplinary matters, and the essence of these discussions is the matter of discipline. Surely the reason why the Bill appears to be going somewhat wider is that a certain element of outside complaints are not wholly professional. That is why there is this half-way house.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has put the point succinctly and carefully, and I totally accept that argument.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I have one small point to put to my hon. Friend. He did not refer to Clause 3, which in my view is of considerable importance because it removes the limitation on the fee charged for the practising certificate. The House is entitled to know what is in the Law Society's mind in respect of the amount of fee it seeks to charge.
Mr. Davis: I am only a humble backbench member of the Law Society and I cannot speak for what the Law Society has in mind. The present statutory requirement is totally unacceptable and insufficient to cover the needs of the compensation fund, and it is important that the Law Society should have greater discretion. I do not think that the Law Society will exercise that discretion irresponsibly—I see no evidence of that—and there are many members of the profession who will investigate the situation carefully and keep it under close suveillance.
I come at long last to my final point. It concerns Clause 14 and the termination of the retainer by the solicitor. This has caused a great deal of injustice to solicitors in the past. Unless there was an agreement in advance specifying that a solicitor was at liberty to withdraw from a case if costs and disbursements were not forthcoming, he had an obligation to carry on with it even if the lay client unreasonably refused to put the solicitor in funds. That is a situation which is being dealt with in order to protect the solicitor. In no other profession or business is anyone expected to offer his services if funds are not forthcoming. This is an important protection for the profession.
I end as I began by warmly applauding the Bill. It will give great protection not only to lay clients but also to members of the profession. If it is enacted

1523
it will give greater credibility to the activities of the Law Society in preserving and, indeed, improving that important relationship with its lay clients to which I have referred.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I want first to apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate as a result of my service on a Select Committee. I regret that I was not present to hear the speeches of the Solicitor-General and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has done a great service to Parliament and to the general public in pursuing his course and his cause in such a manner over a number of years and in trying to persuade the Law Society to accept very reasonable proposals designed to improve the way in which the profession deals with complaints against solicitors. In his speech today he has set out very clearly the main issues which concern us. I entirely share his view about the lay observer and I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to give us positive hope that the matter can be dealt with properly in Standing Committee and thus enable my hon. Friend and others, including myself, not to oppose this Bill in principle on Second Reading.
I am not one of those who take the view that solicitors are out to catch the public. I take the opposite view because I believe that the legal profession is a very honourable one and that almost overwhelmingly those solicitors who are Members of this House bring to bear a great deal of compassion and readiness to assist their fellow Members to understand some of the legal complexities which face Members of Parliament and their constituents. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) will not think anything that I or those who have joined forces with me have done is an attack upon the profession and that we have not given matters careful thought before opposing consistently for at least two Sessions of Parliament the Private Bill promoted and presented to Parliament by the Law Society. My hon. Friend the
1524
Member for Nottingham, West and I did so because we wanted to see introduced into that Bill three vital elements. Two of them have now been included and are reasonably satisfactory, though they do not go the whole way.
We wanted first to ensure that there was a lay element in the adjudication of the society's disciplinary procedures in that it was dealing with complaints against members of the profession, and we wanted to ensure that there was adequate provision for the proper investigation of complaints. The total number of complaints is not in serious dispute. It is in excess of 4,000 a year. I readily accept that a substantial number of them may be quite minor and that many may not be justified at all. However, because they are genuine grievances held by the complainants, they are entitled to serious investigation by a profession with the honour, integrity and standing of the Law Society.
It is clear from the figures that we have of the number of staff employed in the Law Society's investigatory department that there is good ground for believing that the care and attention which 'be public ought to expect for the investigation of complaints may not necessarily be given. I shall not develop that point because it is one which I am sure the Standing Committee will investigate thoroughly in its consideration of the Bill, if and when it reaches its Committee stage. It is no good having a lay element trying to reassure the public that complaints will be dealt with unless the Law Society can show that there is proper machinery to do the job of investigation so that proper evidence can be presented for adjudication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West also referred to the lay observer—the ombudsman. That is an essential element, and we look to the Solicitor-General for some reassurance on the matter.
I see one very hopeful sign in the Money Resolution which refers to money paid from funds voted by Parliament in respect of the lay member. It is clear that it will be open to this House on an annual basis to debate the use to which those funds are put. I believe that the Law Society can look forward in the years ahead, assuming that this measure

1525
reaches the statute book, to regular reviews of the procedure in the course of debates upon the money voted by Parliament for the purposes set out in the Money Resolution. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to confirm my interpretation of that possibility. It is an important matter about which we should be clear.
I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central was not able to tell the House the figure in the mind of the Law Society in respect of the fee for the practising certificate. This is an important matter, and as the Solicitor-General has now assumed full responsibility since we are considering a Government Bill, I hope that he will be able to tell us just what is envisaged as being a suitable fee.
My reason for being concerned is not only that the amount of the fee will be reflected in charges by solicitors to their clients. It could also have a substantial effect on the rates of local authorities and other bodies which employ solicitors. It must not be forgotten that solicitors have this rather quaint procedure whereby their trade union, if I may use that description, is the only one which calls upon employers to pay the union dues of its members. Solicitors employed by local authorities have their legal certificate fees paid from public funds.
Therefore, it is legitimate to know, before agreeing in principle to give the Bill a Second Reading, just what sort of burden will be put upon public funds by giving this open-ended commitment to the Law Society to make its own adjudication on the fee that should be charged for the practising certificate. I hope that we shall have some positive assistance on that matter and that it will not be left wide open.
I will not make a meal of this measure today, because I hope that the House, with its usual generosity, will agree that my name should be among those appointed to serve on the Committee, should the Bill be given a Second Reading. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West about the lay observer will determine whether the Bill gets an unopposed Second Reading in principle and that again will depend on how far the Solicitor-General goes in his reply.
7.21 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: May I reply, with the leave of the House? First, I should like to deal with the three points made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He said that delay is one of the most frequent complaints against solicitors. I am sure that all members of that profession, as well as myself, are grateful for his kind words about overwork rather than negligence often being the cause. I think that has been the case in many offices when we consider the tremendous upsurge of work that has taken place. For example, in just a few years the Bar will have doubled its numbers compared with 10 to 15 years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments about a solicitor being disqualified to sit as a magistrate are not directly relevant to the Bill, but I fully understand what he was saying. I imagine he meant sitting as a lay magistrate from time to time as opposed to sitting as a stipendiary. Such solicitors have proved extremely helpful in the administration of the law. That point was dealt with in the Administration of Justice Act last year. My experience generally has been that solicitors have proved extremely useful, particularly concerning the more complicated prosecutions with which they have to deal. I have not yet come across an instance in which a solicitor was overbearing in any way with his lay colleagues during a hearing.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the disciplinary tribunal, the one watchdog, is fine as long as it barks. He said that his professional life is not at stake. My experience is that when there is a rogue elephant in a particular profession the other members of the tribe are very quick and active to do everything that they can to get him out of the tribe. My experience of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society has been that it could never be accused of trying to protect one of its own who appears before it.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about being a well-informed layman. On every occasion that I hear him, particularly today, but also through the BBC, I think that the benefit to the public of the well-informed layman can also be described as a loss to the solicitor's profession, which I am sure he would have graced had he chosen that way of life.

1527
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) repeated the widespread and acute dissatisfaction that he suggests exists against the Law Society. It is a cry that we have heard in this House time after time. We know that there is a personal reason for the vehemence that my hon. Friend shows on this subject.
My hon. Friend spoke of Clause 2 being a change which he described as very objectionable by taking away the phrase "morally fit" and substituting the words,
"the Society is satisfied as to his character and his suitability to be a solicitor".
I should think that that extends and improves the criteria for admission as a solicitor. As it stands, a man with mental instability who had suffered from nervous disorders would not be excluded. But having to satisfy the society as to his character and suitability to be a solicitor is a more stringent test. It was certainly intended to be such by the Law Society and by those responsible for drafting that clause.
Mr. English: Will the conflict of interest provisions apply in a divorce action if the Bill is passed?
The Solicitor-General: I do not follow that point. I have heard a number of comments—I will not say "threats", because that is probably an improper word to use in this House—by the hon. Gentleman about what will happen to me if I vote in the Lobby tonight should a Division be called, but I am not frightened of those threats.
Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. I asked whether the conflict of interest rules of the Law Society that prevent a solicitor acting for clients with different interests apply where a solicitor is acting in a divorce action?
The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. I still do not understand the point. I do not think that it arises from the debate. I should like to get on because there is another debate which hon. Members are waiting to get started.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) makes comparisons from the last report of the Ombudsman
1528
between the 570 complaints with which he deals with his staff of 90 and those dealt with by the Law Society and its staff. These matters have been dealt with in detail by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). The complaints that go to the Ombudsman have to be sifted through Members of Parliament. The complaints that arrive at the Law Society, either by post or, as we have been told, in person in certain instances, concern cases some of which are so trivial that they do not require much time to deal with them.
Any advocate, whether a barrister or a solicitor, will know that there are always clients who, when a case is lost, immediately blame their advocate. On occasions they may be right. There are happy exceptions, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will confirm. For example, a case which one has lost but in which one has put up a tremendous fight may earn more respect, admiration and thanks than a case which was comparatively difficult but which one did win. But there are usually a number of people who will complain, "I know that I was right. I lost. Therefore, my lawyer is to blame."
I turn now to the suggestion about making provision in the Bill for a lay observer. I expressed the Government's views in reply to an intervention in my opening speech. I see no reason at this stage to alter the views that I then put forward.
It is said that the refusal to put such a provision into the Bill is hiding it away and is a bluff. We do not intend it to be hidden away or to be a bluff. I should remind the House that those who were accused of bluffing and hiding it away are the very people, the Law Society, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quick and I think right to praise for the co-operation and consideration that they have given to this matter. The Lord Chancellor will naturally exercise a degree of control, particularly as the payment to the lay observer will come from the Lord Chancellor's fund dealing with the general administration of justice.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I should not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to misinterpret the tributes that we paid to the Law Society. It took three years and

1529
the blocking of two private Bills to get the Law Society to go as far as it has. It is ready to go to the length of making provision for a lay observer, but the Government apparently are now the stumbling block.
The Solicitor-General: There is no question of the Government being the stumbling block. The original initiatives for the Bill came from the Government. It was agreed to by the Law Society. The only question is whether in a wholly new and experimental way we should try to limit what should happen by words in the Bill or whether we should run it experimentally and see whether after a period some sort of change might not be necessary in the public interest. That is why the matter has been handled in this way and that is why I complained about the phrase "hiding it away" and the word "bluff".
It is a cry that has been made so many times, particularly by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West about the ombudsman, the lay observer or whatever one likes to call him, that he should be able to deal with and finalise any claim where there may be a case against a solicitor. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central said, and I am sure that most people would agree with him, that the proper forum for these cases is a court. But even if the provision was made for the ombudsman or lay observer to deal with this it would have to be done by something just like a court.
Often if one has to deal with negligence, whether the solicitor or the client was right, as to what the consequences of the solicitor's alleged negligence were, it will require evidence and witnesses to determine the facts. That could obviously not be dealt with by letter or papers and so we should be substituting our accepted system of justice in the courts with another form of court presided over by the lay observer or ombudsman. In such circumstances I believe that the system we now have is the better system.
Mr. English: There is one vast difference, of course. The court can literally impose punishments or penalties as can the disciplinary tribunal. The Ombudsman cannot. All that the Solicitor-General has said is equally true of the Ombudsman investigating negligence of a civil servant which in certain
1530
cases can be brought into court. The difference is that when the Ombudsman finally makes his recommendation it is only by custom and practice that the Government accept it. We remember the famous row when they did not in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was a participant. The Ombudsman is not like a court of law which hands down an order saying, "You must do it."
The Solicitor-General: The only other way in which I can see this can be done would be by statute requiring a solicitor to accept an order against him to pay what may amount to thousands of pounds of damages arising out of a decision by a man who probably is not legally qualified. That is obviously undesirable.
I deal finally with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) concerning fees for the practising certificate. They are open-ended for the Law Society, he said, and one could understand his fears if what he said were true. He explained to the House, and we sympathise with him, that he had not heard my opening speech. I reassure him that the fees are decided by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. The Law Society, therefore, will be able to make representations to the Master of the Rolls about what the fees for the practising certificate should be. In the end it would not be for the society to make a recommendation.
As for the question of annual payments I do not wish to express a final opinion to the House but I understand that the view formed by the hon. Member is probably the right one.
Question put, That the Bill he now read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division——
Mr. English(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you guide us on what Members who are either solicitors or barristers should do? Should they vote or should they not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am prepared to give a ruling

1531
on this matter. In 1811 Mr. Speaker Abbot used these words to describe an interest which would disqualify a vote:
"This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy."

Division No. 31.]

AYES

[7.35 p.m.

Adiey, Robert

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Atkins, Humphrey

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Parkinson, Cecil

Austick, David

Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)

Percival, Ian

Awdry, Daniel

Haselhurst, Alan

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Hastings, Stephen

Pink, R. Bonner

Batsford, Brian

Havers, Sir Michael

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

Hawkins, Paul

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Beith, A. J.

Hayhoe, Barney

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Bell, Ronald

Hicks, Robert

Redmond, Robert

Benyon, W.

Hiley, Joseph

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Biffen, John

Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Biggs-Davison, John

Holland, Philip

Rhys Williams Sir Brandon

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Hooson, Emlyn

Ridsdale, Julian

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Hornby, Richard

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Sainsbury, Timothy

Bowden, Andrew

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Scott, Nicholas

Bray, Ronald

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Iremonger, T. L.

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Bryan, Sir Paul

James, David

Shersby, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

Jessel, Toby

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Burden, F. A.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Simeons, Charles

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Skeet, T. H. H.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

Kershaw, Anthony

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Soref, Harold

Carlisle, Mark

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Soref, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Kinsey, J. R.

Speed, Keith

Clark, William (surrey, E.)

Kirk Peter

Sproat, lain

Clegg, Walter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Stainton, Keith

Cockeram, Eric

Knox, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Cooke, Robert

Lane, David

Steel, David

Cooper, A. E.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sutcliffe, John

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Cormack, Patrick

Loveridge, John

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Costain, A. P.

Luce, R. N.

Tebbit, Norman

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

MacArthur, Ian

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

McCrindle, R. A.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Dykes, Hugh

McLaren, Martin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

Madel, David

Waddington, David

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Mather, Carol

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Eyre, Reginald

Mawby, Ray

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Fidler, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Walters, Dennis

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ward, Dame Irene

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Fowler, Norman

Moate, Roger

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Money, Ernle

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Gower, Raymond

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Winterton, Nicholas

Gray, Hamish

Monro, Hector

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Green, Alan

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Neave, Airey

Worsley, Marcus

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Younger, Hn. George

Grylls, Michael

Normanton, Tom

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Oakes, Gordon

Mr. Michael Jopling and

Gurden, Harold

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Mr. Marcus Fox.

NOES

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Marks, Kenneth

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Price, William (Rugby)

Mr. James Wellbeloved and

Deakins, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Michael English.

Hardy, Peter

Stallard, A W.

Question accordingly agreed to.
This ruling has been followed by all subsequent Speakers. There are many solicitors outside this House and the Bill is clearly a matter of State policy. A motion to disallow any vote on its Second Reading would, therefore, clearly be out of order.
The House having divided: Ayes 168, Noes 10.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
Queens Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prevent non-British subjects being prohibited from becoming or practising as solicitors ; to amend the Solicitors Acts 1957 to 1965 ; to make further provision as to the administration of oaths and taking of affidavits, removal from and restoration to the roll of solicitors, the powers of The Law Society to intervene in a solicitor's practice and the termination of a solicitor's retainer ; and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of such fees and allowances for the lay members of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal constituted under the said Act as the Lord
1534
Chancellor may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.—[Mr. Fox.]
Mr. Michael English: There can be no reason to exclude from this resolution provision to pay the lay observer and to include provision to pay the lay members of the disciplinary tribunal, except to exclude the one from the scope of the Bill and to include the other within its scope so that if the resolution is passed we shall not be able to discuss the lay observer in Committee. Does the Solicitor-General challenge that assumption? Is not that what the resolution means?
The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): The case has been put three times and I give the answer for the third time. It is the Government's intention that the proposals for lay observers should be extra-statutory, experimental and open to change as requirements provide.
Question put and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  New Clause 1

    RECOVERY BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES
    ' (1) In any case where a local authority—

    (a) are empowered under any enactment to carry out any works or do any other thing on or in relation to any land or building, and

    (b) by virtue of that or any other enactment are entitled to recover from any person expenses incurred by them in exercising that power,

    the local authority shall be entitled to recover, together with and in like manner as the expenses which are recoverable as mentioned in paragraph (b) above, such sum as appears to them to be reasonable in respect of their establishment charges.
    No. 43, in Schedule 8, page 68, line 14, at end insert:

    '26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8. c. 49.

    (The Public Health Act 1936.

    Section 292'.

    No. 44, in page 68, line 23, at end insert:

    '12,13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 55.

    The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.

    In section 7(2) the words "two hundred and ninety-two" and the words "for the inclusion of sums in respect of establishment charges in expenses recoverable under that Act" '.

    No. 45, in page 69, line 8, column 3, at end insert:

    'In section 174(2)(6) the words from "which may include" to "and notices" '.

    No. 47, in page 71, line 46, at end insert:

    ' 1969 c. 10.

    The Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969.

    In section 23(1), paragraph (c) excep the final word "and" '.

    No. 48, in page 72, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

    'In section 91(4), paragraph (c) except the final word "and" '.

    Mr. Rossi: The amendments are consequential to Schedule 8. They are necessary repeals or amendments to other statutes if new Clause 1 is to take effect. Local authorities already have the power under certain statutes—in particular the Public Health Act 1936, the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959, the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949—to include 5 per cent. on top of their charges for doing works under those Acts as establishment expenses.
    The local authorities have long since felt that 5 per cent. was an unrealistic figure. They have been urging upon the Government that they be given wider discretion.
    1536
    (2) The provisions of subsection (1) above shall have effect in substitution for any provision contained in any enactment, including an enactment in a local Act, under which a local authority who have exercised any such power as is referred to in subsection (1)(a) above have power to recover any sum in respect of their establishment charges or any clement or elements of those charges.
    (3) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in section 34 of this Act '.—[Mr. Rossi.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.46 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With new Clause 1, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments:
    The purpose of the clause is to broaden the power enjoyed by local authorities to add establishment expenses to the costs incurred by them in carrying out works to property on behalf of or in default of the owner, and to recover such costs and expenses from the owner. This is another instance of the Government's wish to give local authorities all reasonable powers that they need without unnecessary fetters being placed upon them. Therefore, new Clause 1 refers to "reasonable" charges instead of a fixed percentage charge.
    Mr. Gordon Oakes: We welcome the clause and agree with its principle. What it is saying is that where

    1537
    a local authority has to expend local money mainly on default powers, because it has had to go in to do something which someone else ought to have done, it is obviously wrong that the ratepayers of that authority should have to pay the establishment charges. Perhaps the Minister can expound a little on some of the difficulties that may be created.
    The great advantage of having a percentage system is that it is fixed and definite and the person receiving the bill knows whether he has been properly charged by the 5 per cent. rule. The difficulty here, when the clause refers merely to establishment charges, is to know how a local authority arrives at its establishment charges in respect of the many departments which may be involved in dealing with a particular default power.
    This may well surprise the individual who has to pay the bill, because he will be amazed at the cost to the local authority of carrying on those default powers. It may be that he deserves to pay ; it is certainly wrong that the ratepayer should pay. I wonder what sort of system the Government have in mind, having rightly rejected the percentage system, for showing how the local authority will, to use a phrase that the Under-Secretary will understand, tax its costs in the event of a dispute involving many departments. I ask this question purely for information and am in no way seeking to criticise the intent of the clause.
    Mr. Rossi: I understand that the term "establishment charges" or "overheads" is well understood in the building and construction industry, and we would expect local authorities to follow professional practice in these matters. Should difficulties arise, there will no doubt be consultations between my Department and the local authority associations to give guidance as necessary.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    EXTENSION OF POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE ADVANCES
    (1) Section 43 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 (power of local authorities to make advances for certain housing purposes) shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.
    (2) At the end of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "or

    (e) subject to subsection (2A) below, facilitating the repayment by means of the advance of the amount outstanding on a previous loan made for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) above".

    (3) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

    "(2A) An advance shall not be made for the purpose specified in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) above unless the local authority or county council satisfy themselves that the primary effect of the advance will be to meet the housing needs of the applicant by enabling him either to retain an interest in the house concerned or to carry out such works in relation to that house as would be eligible for an advance by virtue of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of that subsection."

    (4) In paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of that section for the words "may provide for repayment being made either by instalments of principal or by annuity of principal and interest combined" there shall be substituted the words "shall provide for repayment of the principal:—

    (i) by instalments (of equal or unequal amounts) beginning either on the date of the advance or at a later date, or

    (ii) at the end of a fixed period (with or without a provision allowing the local authority or county council to extend that period) or on the happening of a specified event before the end of that period.

    and for the payment of instalments of interest throughout the period beginning on the date of the advance and ending when the whole of the principal is repaid".
    (5) At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—

    (5) If it appears to a local authority or count council that the principal effect of the making of an advance under subsection (1) above in respect of any premises would be to meet the housing needs of the applicant, they may make the advance notwithstanding that it is intended that some part of the premises will be used or, as the case may be, will continue to be used, otherwise than as a dwelling: and accordingly where, by virtue of this subsection, a local authority or county council propose to make an advance in respect of any premises, the premises shall be treated for the purposes of subsections (1) to (4) above as, or as a building to be converted into, a house or houses".

    1539
    (6) On the coming into operation of this section, no further advances shall be made by local authorities in England and Wales under section 74 of the Housing Act 1969 or section 41 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 '.—[Mr. Rossi.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    No. 46, in Schedule 8, page 71, line 45, at end insert—

    '1969 c. 33.

    The Housing Act 1969.

    Section 74'.

    No. 52, in Title, line 3, after ' borrowing ', insert ' and lending '.
    Mr. Rossi: The amendments are consequential to Schedule 8 and to the Title. In Committee the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved a new clause seeking to give local authorities
    "unfettered freedom to enter into the mortgage market to assist inhabitants to buy their own homes".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 11th December, 1973; c 394.]
    He gave three examples of the situation where such freedom would be helpful. He cited the case where a mortgagor found that he could not meet the interest charges on his current mortgage and faced foreclosure by his mortgagee. He urged that power should be given to local authorities to re-mortgage the property at more acceptable rates of interest.
    The second example was where, following separation or divorce, a wife obtains possession of a matrimonial home under the Matrimonial Homes Act but then finds it necessary to buy out her former husband's interest. She would need a mortgage to do this. The hon. Member felt that local authorities should be enabled to make the necessary advance in such a case.
    The third case he gave was of a power which would enable local authorities to give young married couples on low incomes the same kind of deferred terms as the Government have encouraged building societies to give others to help them with their mortgages. Such power does not exist currently for local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development was sympathetic to the proposals but felt that the drafting of the clause was too loose. He gave an undertaking to bring forward an amendment covering the matters raised by the hon. Member at a later stage and to give the hon. Member full credit for having raised this matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient if we discuss the following amendments:
    No. 22, in Clause 40, page 39, line 6, after ' 34 ', insert
    ', Extension of power of local authorities to make advances,'.
    I am happy to discharge that undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether the House wants me to go through the new clause and to explain its meaning. I see hon. Members opposite shaking their heads, and as we have a lot of business before us I shall leave the matter there.
    Mr. Oakes: I thank the Minister for this new clause and for what he said. I am certain that it will be welcomed by local authorities throughout the country. The new clause which I tabled in Committee was to meet suggestions from local authorities who had found that their powers of granting mortgages were unduly restricted. I readily accept that my new clause would have gone further than giving authorities
    "unfettered freedom to enter into the mortgage market to assist inhabitants to buy their own homes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 11th December 1973; c. 394.]
    That, however, is what I wanted to do.
    My new clause would have allowed them to buy commercial properties and so on, which was not the intention. This clause does all of the things I wanted in Committee. I want to dwell for a moment on the increasing difficulties in which many local authorities find themselves with regard to the Matrimonial Homes Act, and the perilous position of many divorced or separated wives who find that, although the court has given them possession of their own homes, that possession is rendered useless because they cannot find the money for a mortgage.
    Increasingly local authorities, in their own interests, will have to provide a mortgage for separated or divorced wives. If they fail to do so then, apart from the distress and misery caused to the wife and her family, they will incur an obligation to rehouse that family in Part 3 accommodation. It is nonsensical, when the wife and children could remain in

    1541
    the home which the court has allotted them and when the local authority could advance the mortgage. There are many instances in which a local authority could be of great service in this way.
    The other example I cited is a local case, of a widow whose interest on her mortgage is paid by the Department of Health and Social Security. Although that is secure, the house obviously gets in a state of disrepair over the years and requires money to be spent upon repairs. It does not qualify for an improvement grant because these are not improvements but repairs. Under this clause the local authority could step in and either make an advance for that specific purpose, knowing that its interest was secure, or allow the original mortgage to be called in and readvance on the property to assist that person.

  New Clause 14

    RATING SURCHARGE ON UNUSED OFFICE, ETC. PROPERTY
    ' The following sections shall be inserted after section 17 of the principal Act:—

    "Liability to progressive surcharge in respect of unused office, &c., property

    17A.—(1) If for a continuous period exceeding six months a commercial building is not used for the purpose for which it was constructed or has been adapted, its owner shall pay in respect of that period (the ' period of non-use ') a surcharge additional to the rates (if any) payable apart from this section.

    (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where—

    (a) the owner has tried his best to let the building, or

    (b) the condition of the building makes it unfit for use for the purpose for which it was constructed or has been adapted, and it cannot be rendered fit at a cost

    10

    which is reasonable in relation to the value of that use.

    (3) Where the owner is in occupation of the building throughout the period of non-use, the surcharge shall be levied in the form of rates by doubling the normal rates for the first twelve months of the period of non-use, trebling the normal rates for the second twelve months, quadrupling the normal rates for the third twelve months,

    13

    and so on progressively while the period of non-use lasts.

    In this subsection 'the normal rates', in relation to any period, means the rates payable in respect of that period apart from this section (taking rates as accruing uniformly from day to day); and where the period of non-use extends through part only of any twelve-month period, the surcharge shall be calculated by reference to

    20

    the normal rates for that part.

    (4) Where the owner is not in occupation of the building throughout the period of non-use—

    (a) the amount of the surcharge shall be the same as it would have been if the owner had been in occupation of the building throughout the period of

    25

    non-use, and

    (b) the surcharge shall be levied in the form of rates of that amount as if they were payable by the owner in respect of that occupation.

    (5) In determining whether or not the owner has tried his best to let the building, regard shall be had to the following, as well as other relevant factors—

    30

    (a) the rent sought, compared with rents of similar properties in the area,

    (b) the other covenants and conditions required by the owner to be contained in any proposed lease,

    (c) whether or not the owner indicated to prospective lessees that he was prepared to let the building in parts,

    35

    (d) the number and resources of the firms of estate agents retained for the purpose of letting the building, and

    (e) the nature and extent of advertising of the building by the owner or those agents

    There are many such instances in which local authorities can operate the powers of this clause to relieve people of a great deal of distress and misery, particularly when they run into unexpected hardship. I thank the Government for tabling the clause and am certain that it will be welcomed by local authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. Rossi: Subsection (5) permits advances to be made for mixed premises which are both residential and commercial. That is to meet the case of the small shop with living accommodation over it. To that extent, perhaps we have gone a little further than even the hon. Gentleman hoped.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Supplemental provisions as to section 17A.

    17B.—(1) A rating authority may serve a notice on the owner of any commercial building requiring him to make a written return containing such particulars as may be reasonably required by the authority for the purposes of section 17A of this Act ; and subsections (3) to (6) of section 82 of this Act shall apply to a notice under this subsection as they apply to a notice under section 82, as if—

    (a) the reference in section 82(3) to the valuation officer were a reference to the

    45

    rating authority, and

    (b) the penalties laid down by section 82(4) and (5) were—

    (i) on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £400; and

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

    50

    (2) References in section 17A of this Act and this section to a commercial building are references to a hereditament (not being a dwellinghouse, or a hereditament having a floor space not exceeding 240 square feet and used as a lock-up garage) whose net annual value falls to be ascertained under section 19(2) of this Act; and if during a period of non-use a commercial building is divided into two or more

    55

    hereditaments, the amount of any surcharge imposed under section 17A of this Act in respect of any of those hereditaments shall be the same as if it had been a separate hereditament from the beginning of the period of non-use.

    (3) A surcharge imposed under section 17A of this Act in respect of a hereditament shall until recovered be a charge on the land comprised in the hereditament;

    60

    and for the purposes of the application to such a charge of section 15 (registration of local land charges) of the Land Charges Act 1925 this Act shall be deemed to be a similar statute to the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.

    (4) Where a hereditament which is not used for the purpose for which it was constructed or has been adapted becomes so used on any day and becomes not so

    65

    used again on the expiration of a period of less than six weeks beginning with that day, then for the purpose of ascertaining any period during which the hereditament has been continuously not so used, it shall be deemed to have remained not so used on that day and during that period.

    (5) A hereditament shall be taken to be used on any day for the purpose for

    70

    which it was constructed or has been adapted if, but only if, not less than four-fifths of it was so used on that day.

    (6) Schedule 1 to this Act (except paragraphs 1, 2(c) and (d), 6, 12 and 14) shall apply for the purposes of section 17A of this Act as it applies for the purposes of section 17 thereof, as if—

    75

    (a) references to paragraph I of that Schedule were references to section 17A of this Act,

    (b) references to a relevant hereditament or a relevant period of vacancy were references to a commercial building and a period of non-use respectively, and

    80

    (c) references to three months were references to six months.

    (7) In section 17A of this Act and this section ' owner ' means the person entitled to possession, and where different persons are entitled to possession of a hereditament during different parts of a period of non-use, a surcharge in respect of that period shall be apportioned between them according to the length of each part and levied

    85

    accordingly.

    (8) In the application of section 17(A) of this Act to the City of London, ' rates ' means the aggregate of the poor rate and the general rate.

    (9) Section 17A of this Act shall not apply to any period before the passing of the Local Government Act 1974" '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    8 p.m.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): There are also selected for discussion the following sub-amendments:
    (c), in line 20, at end insert:
    ' (3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) above, the rating authority may with the consent of the Secretary of State after the first 12 months of the period of non-use levy by greater multiples
    1544
    of the normal rates than those specified above while the period of non-use lasts '.
    (d), in line 38, at end insert;
    '(f) whether or not the owner has made attempts to obtain planning consent to use the building for housing purposes as an alternative to commercial development and, if successful, has advertised the housing accommodation for sale or rent '.
    It is also convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 18, line 41, 'Clause 15 ', at end add:
    ' (6) Power shall be given to the rating authority to apply to the Secretary of State so as to impose an additional penalty rating of 50 per cent. where a property has remained unoccupied for a period in excess of two years '.

    1545
    and Government Amendment No. 21, in page 39, line 6, Clause 40, after 'II', insert:
    'other than sections (Rating surcharge on unused office, etc., property) and 21 '.
    Mr. Oakes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for separate Divisions on sub-amendments (c) and (d) at the appropriate time?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I think that that is in order.
    Mr. Graham Page: I said in Committee when we were dealing with the subject of empty property that it was, on average, as great a responsibility to local authorities as occupied property, and that local authorities should have the power to rate empty property in full. That is dealt with in Clause 15(3)—100 per cent. rating of all kinds of empty property, and the discretion of the local authority to adopt that—apart from that, the keeping of commercial property vacant, with the inevitable result, at present, of an increase in capital values was an affront to society that warranted some penalty. I undertook at that time that if what I had in mind was capable of being drafted into good legislation I would ask the House at this stage to accept it in the Bill. It is here in the new clause. I regret that it takes up so many words, but it achieves its purpose.
    The clause imposes a penal rating surcharge only on any commercial property not used for the purpose for which it was constructed, or for which it has been adapted, for six months, and which the owner has not tried his best to let. It may be that the phrase "tried his best" is new in legislation, but it expresses the intention. Elsewhere in legislation the phrase "used his best endeavours" and similar phrases have been used, but the phrase "tried his best" is good, ordinary English and it defines the occasions when a penalty should be imposed.
    The surcharge will be 100 per cent. of the full rates on the property for the first year of un-occupation, the percentage rising by an additional 100 per cent. for each subsequent year. If I might touch upon one of the amendments to the new clause, I contend that we ought at this stage to lay down the specific penalty. We are laying down a penalty, and therefore Parliament should be specific about it. It would raise considerable difficulties
    1546
    if we gave local authorities, even with the Secretary of State's permission, a right to vary a penalty so that there might be different penalties in various districts. Therefore, we have laid down specifically this progressive increase of 100 per cent. for each year that a property remains unoccupied, provided that the other conditions which I have mentioned apply.
    The surcharge is to be levied as if it were rates, additional to any rates for which the owner is liable in respect of rateable occupation not amounting to use for the purpose for which the premises were constructed or adapted, so that the clause should bite on the owner who puts carpets or curtains into the building. That would be a rateable occupation but not a use for the purpose for which the building was constructed. The surcharge is levied in addition to any empty property rate levied where the rating authority has resolved to adopt the provisions of the General Rate Act 1967, which relate to empty property rating.
    Rating authorities will have no discretion whether to impose the surcharge. The penalties must be definite, and must not be left to the discretion of a rating authority. It would be inappropriate for a rating authority to have such discretion, as this is a matter of national policy and not primarily a matter of recompense to the local authority involved. It will be for the rating authority to decide where circumstances render an owner liable to surcharge. As a form of rates the income from the surcharge will accrue to local government and rating authorities will be responsible for recovering it from the owner.
    There will be two avenues of appeal open to the owner if he wishes to dispute liability to surcharge. Hon. Members who were in Committee will recollect that one of my anxieties when we were discussing the proposal was that we ought to allow the innocent a proper right of appeal against the surcharge. Therefore, in the first place, because the surcharge is in the form of a rate, the owner could appeal against it to the Crown Court under Section 7 of the General Rate Act 1967. Alternatively he could wait until the rating authority endeavoured to recover the surcharge and make an appeal by way of defence to the authority's action for recovery, either as a simple contract debt

    1547
    in the county court or High Court, or as a charge on the property.
    The clause is divided into two new sections, 17A and 17B. It would be wearisome if I went through them in detail. Generally speaking, their drafting is self-explanatory. Section 17A(2) exempts from surcharge any building which is unfit for use for the purpose for which it was constructed or adapted and which cannot be made fit at reasonable cost, and any building which the owner has tried his best to let.
    Subsection (3) deals with the case I have mentioned, of rateable occupation which does not go so far as to put the property into use for the purpose for which it was constructed or adapted. If it is merely put into rateable occupation, without being put into use, the surcharge can be imposed on the owner.
    Subsection (5) provides that in determining whether an owner has tried his best to secure a letting of the property the rating authority must consider, in addition to any other relevant factors, the rent in relation to the levels of rent locally ; the rent that the owner has been asking as compared with local rents ; and the other covenants and conditions which the owner has endeavoured to impose when offering the property on lease. It must consider whether the building is offered for letting as a whole or in parts, and whether it is reasonable perhaps to withhold the letting of parts with a desire to let the whole. It should consider the number and resources of firms of estate agents retained by the owner into whose hands he has put the property for letting, and the nature and extent of the advertising.
    I think that we have included the relevant matters which should be considered. I shall not try to argue against an amendment which has not been put to the House. I say only at this stage that I think we have covered all that is necessary, but I shall listen to the argument on the amendment.
    In Section 17B, subsection (2) is of importance. That defines what is a commercial building for the purpose of Section 17A. The definition we have used there has been used in other legislation. It is, unfortunately, defined rather by
    1548
    cross-reference and exclusion of other properties from a definition given in a section in the General Rate Act 1967. But I am assured that it covers what are generally known as commercial premises and the sort of premises which in common sense we wish to tax by the surcharge.
    The surcharge will be calculated on any part of the original hereditament as if it had not been used from the beginning of that period of non-use, if the property is divided into two or more separate units of occupation and there is an effort by that means to escape from the surcharge
    Subsection (3) makes the surcharge a charge on the land comprised in the hereditament registered as a local land charge, and provides for all that follows from the normal business of registering any charge on property as a local land charge.
    Subsection (4) seeks to prevent the avoidance of the surcharge by making arrangements for short-term letting. It provides that if during the period of non-use the building is used for a purpose for which it was constructed or adapted for six weeks or less, that period is to be ignored in calculating the liability for the surcharge.
    Subsection (5) defines the measure of use which is to be counted as use for the purpose of escaping the surcharge. The figure of four-fifths has been chosen to allow for the genuine user who is unable to put to good use a small part of those commercial premises, but to prevent an avoidance of the surcharge by putting only, say, 55 per cent. to proper use and ensuring that on balance nothing more than the 100 per cent. empty property rate could be levied. Subsection (7) defines the owner for the purpose of Section 17A.
    Subsection (8) deals with a peculiar discovery we made, that the City of London charges not only general rates but poor rates. It obtains its revenue under two headings. If we had not spotted that, we should have had the extraordinary position that people in the City of London would have escaped a large part of the surcharge if they had had commercial property empty. That would have been a nonsense, and I am glad that my advisers discovered that little discrepancy.

    1549
    8.15 p.m.
    Subsection (9) excludes for the purpose of the new sections any period before the Bill becomes law, because it would not have been right to make it retrospective.
    I shall not try to answer another amendment before it is put to the House. I shall listen to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) wishes to make on his Amendment No. 9 and answer them later, with the leave of the House.
    Amendment No. 21 is a Government amendment, purely consequential on the new clause. It is intended that the new Sections 17A and 17B shall be operative from the date of the Royal Assent. Amendment No. 21, to Clause 40, about commencement, provides that accordingly.
    In Clause 21 the interpretation provision has also to come into operation at the same time of Section 17A and 17B are coming into operation at the date of the Royal Assent. Therefore, I ask the House to accept that amendment, consequential on the acceptance of the new clause.
    It has not been an easy matter to draft what I think it is agreed on all sides we should try to do. It is easy enough to say in a few phrases what we want, but the drafting was not easy. I am extremely grateful for the advice I have received. I think that we have the clause watertight now, and that it will cause considerable satisfaction to the public by tackling what I have described as an affront to society, the practice of keeping properties vacant when they could be put to good use.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the definition of the type of property includes warehouse and industrial premises in the word "commercial"?
    Mr. Page: Not industrial premises. We are tackling only the commercial premises. I should have to take advice on whether a warehouse is commercial or industrial, but my impression is that a warehouse used purely for the storage of industrial goods is industrial, not commercial.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The two sub-amendments may be spoken to now and dealt with
    1550
    along with Amendments Nos. 9 and 21. But they will not be moved unless or until the new clause is given its Second Reading.
    Mr. Oakes: I am obliged for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked your predecessor in the Chair for a separate Division on sub-amendments (c) and (d), when the time comes, if necessary. But I appreciate that I do not move them now.
    I welcomed the two previous new clauses introduced by the Government, but the honeymoon must now end. Although I think that the Minister is genuine when he says that to leave property such as Centre Point and other commercial properties obscenely empty in areas of acute housing and commercial need is an affront to society, the clause does little in the way of penalty for leaving them empty.
    The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry breathed fire and fumes in the House about the unacceptable face of capitalism and the Harry Hyams and Centre Points of this world. He threatened dire things that he would do instantly about such properties. He then left the Department of the Environment and the present Secretary of State for the Environment came in. We heard nothing about the terrible penalties that would be inflicted upon those who leave properties empty in this way.
    Then along came the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his famous Budget Statement in December. There was a great deal of window-dressing. The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time talking about the dire penalties that he would inflict on the profits made on such premises, but when we analysed his statement we found that there was nothing that the property developer had to fear from the imposition of taxes. There was nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's statement to persuade the property developer to let or sell his property, because even after paying tax he could make more money merely by sitting on the property and doing nothing with it.
    Now we have the right hon. Gentleman and the Bill hitting the property developer over the head with a feather duster. That is what the clause does. The capital gains on the property far

    1551
    outweigh any doubling, trebling or quadrupling of the rates, because at the current rate of inflation the capital value of the property itself doubles or trebles within the same period as the rates are increased, and there is therefore little pressure on or inducement for the property developer to use his property.
    I should now like to deal with some of the phrases in the clause. I have never before seen in an Act of Parliament the phrase "tried his best". It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the simpler we can make the legislation and the more we can use ordinary English in it, the better it will be because everyone will understand it, and that includes the courts. But the right hon. Gentleman and I, as members of the legal profession, know that if one uses a phrase such as "tried his best"—which might almost be described as colloquial—in court, one makes a gift to the property speculators.
    The legal advisers of the property speculators will twist those words inside out, because there is no proper legal definition of what is meant by "tried his best". I know of no statute which uses those words, nor do I know of any judicial definition of them. The point will be seized on quickly by the highly-paid professional advisers of property speculators and owners of empty property to defeat the clause even though it does not impinge upon the enormous capital gains being made. The phrase "tried his best" is an almost amateurish way of trying to deal with the problem. I am sure that Opposition Members, without the help of skilled parliamentary draftsmen, could find a more watertight expression than "tried his best". The clause goes on to try to define what is meant by that phrase. Who will make the decision? Will it be the rating authority, the local authority or the valuation court, or will some other court decide whether the owner has tried his best?
    The whole of subsection (5) is fraught with difficulties. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it is difficult to find words to stop the loopholes which these property speculators find in almost any Act of Parliament, in the same way as rats and mice find holes into a dwelling-house. The Government
    1552
    are trying to tighten the legislation, but the use of the phrase
    "the rent sought, compared with rents of similar properties in the area"
    will give rise to difficulties. I say that because very often there are no similar properties in the area. It is, therefore, almost impossible to arrive at a determination of the proper rent because there is nothing with which to make a comparison. The other properties in the area may be old office buildings. We are dealing with a skyscraper and a different type of office building. There are no other skyscrapers in the area with which to make a comparison.
    Paragraph (c) says
    "whether or not the owner indicated to prospective lessees that he was prepared to let the building in parts".
    What is the size of a part? If someone proposes to let five floors at a time, he may have the greatest difficulty in finding a lessee who can afford to pay for such a large chunk of the building. How will this provision be determined? Will it be on the basis of floor space, the number of storeys or the number of rooms? How will this be defined by whoever has to make the decision on whether the man has tried his best?
    The next factor is
    "the number and resources of the firms of estate agents retained for the purpose of letting the building".
    I query the phrase "resources…of estates agents". I do not know what that means. I do not know that the number of estate agents is particularly relevant. It is the activities of the estate agents in trying to let or sell the property that matter. What the people who have to determine whether a man has tried his best have to decide is whether the estate agents—one or more of them—have tried their best to let or sell the property.
    It does not matter whether it is a small firm of estate agents with little or no resources or whether there are one or 20 estate agents. What matters is the degree of endeavour in trying to let the property. A great deal of covering up could be done by estate agents who have the property on their books. When a prospective purchaser came along they could do nothing to advance the claims of the property or to push it in the way they might push other properties. The

    1553
    key determining factor should be the amount of effort that has been put into letting or selling the property, not the number of estate agents involved or their resources. A tiny firm of estate agents could do a better job than a multiple firm in letting or selling a property.
    The next factor is
    "the nature and extent of advertising of the building".
    This is a much better way of deciding what endeavours the owner has made to let the property, but does this go far enough in determining whether he has genuinely tried to let or sell his property? I do not think it does.
    The provision needs to be strengthened, and we shall be endeavouring to do two things in the amendments to which we shall come later. The first is with regard to the penalty levy. Under the clause as it stands, in the first year the rates on the property will be doubled. The next year they will be trebled, the year after they will be quadrupled, and so on progressively year by year. That is the design of the clause.
    8.30 p.m.
    What we endeavour to do in amendment (c) is to say that in certain circumstances it is not enough merely to double, treble or quadruple year after year the rates of property, because the property speculator, just as he can under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures, can pay penal rates on property and still find it far more profitable to leave it empty rather than sell it. It does not go far enough in some cases, but we leave that clause in in the general run of cases.
    I am certain that it would be no deterrent to the owners of Centre Point and such buildings to put them under the effect of the clause. It would not secure the letting of a single office or room in an unused building because its capital appreciation was so great and rising so rapidly that it would be no penalty.
    I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is genuine when he says that this is the unacceptable face of capitalism. It is the unacceptable face in our society today. We want to provide that, notwithstanding the doubling, trebling and quadrupling of rates, a rating authority may, after the first 12 months, up-rate the non-use levy by even greater multiples. If it feels that a property is being left empty
    1554
    in the obscene way that some of these properties have been left empty, it should multiply the normal rates after the first year by 10. That is the way to get to grips with the situation. The rating authority could then force a developer to let his property, because he would be paying penal rates.
    In case a local authority acted unreasonably, I have added the proviso that, if it wished to use rating multiples greater than those laid down in the clause, it could do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State. The onus would then be firmly on the Secretary of State, on the man who says that it is entirely wrong for those properties to be left empty as many are today. If the local authority concerned with a building like Centre Point wanted to impose a multiplier of 10 or 15 times the normal rates, it could tell the Secretary of State, who could agree, so as to see what the developer would do when faced with that kind of bill. It would mean that the rates could be adjusted to take account of the capital value accruing year by year to the developer who found it more profitable to leave property unused.
    There are two other considerations which are not included in the clause, the first being the problem of alternative use. Last Sunday there was a peaceful demonstration at Centre Point. I know that things went wrong afterwards, but I have no hesitation in applauding the peaceful side. The breaches of the peace I would not applaud. The peaceful side of that demonstration was basically by people who care and who were concerned that this monument to capitalism should stand there mocking the people in the area, many of whom have no home.
    The second consideration is that there ought to be a way of deciding whether the man has "tried his best" to let his property and whether he has considered letting it for an alternative use such as housing.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman said that he applauded the peaceful part of the Centre Point demonstration. Does he mean that he gives his approval to people who got in under false pretences by pretending that they were security guards and were thus guilty of deception?
    Mr. Oakes: Yes, indeed I do. They got in peacefully, used no violence and left after their peaceful demonstration had been concluded. I have no time for the people who got involved with the police outside the building afterwards although one could possibly feel the strength of their irritation. But the others focused public attention on the building which has stood empty for so long, and to that extent, and since they used no violence and left the premises peacefully after 24 or 48 hours' occupation, they did a great deal of good.
    What they were concerned with—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) agrees—was not whether the property should be double, treble or quadruple-rated. They were concerned not even with its emptiness but with the fact that this huge building has stood there while people in the area have been homeless. Therefore, if the owner is trying his best to let the property, he should say "I have built a big white elephant which I cannot sell. I have tried with estate agents and I cannot use it for commercial development, so I will put in a planning application for housing development." If the application is granted and he genuinely tries his best to let or sell the housing accommodation, he will probably have little difficulty.
    Thus, in addition to the tests relating to commercial development, Amendment (d) would provide for consideration of whether that man had done his best to obtain planning consent for housing and, if successful, had advertised it for sale or rent. The Government should accept this proposition if they want to come to grips with this problem of empty properties, which exist in many other cities than London—almost invariably the areas of greatest housing need.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead asked me whether I approved of what was done by people who did not want to leave that building empty as a provocation to people in the area. One can well understand their annoyance, which led them technically to break the law of trespass. That is all they did in going in and then going out ; they did no damage to the building.
    The Government should consider giving the new clause teeth in the way that I have suggested. As it is, it goes no way towards forcing the developer to do what
    1556
    both sides want him to be forced to do. The amendments will help ; I commend them to the House to give the new clause teeth.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) because it allows me to deplore immediately his declaring himself in favour of the events of last weekend. I think he agreed that it was trespass and unlawful entry. Approval of such an episode in any circumstances is surely bound to prejudice the whole basis of the law of private property and security against entry. It is a slippery slope, certainly for someone in his position as a member of the Law Society, to support this—[Laughter.] That seems to cause great amusement. I am amused that he should have the effrontery to support those actions.
    The hon. Member's attitude is a dangerous surrender to unlawful behaviour. The slippery slope on which it takes him will not be limited to Centre Point. It cannot do other than involve private residences and property of all descriptions. He would find it difficult to draw a line which the country would consider proper.
    I should be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's definition of commercial property. I noted his reply, that it does not include industrial premises, but what about warehouse premises and shop property?
    Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps I can answer right away the question that I failed to answer when my hon. Friend put it to me earlier. A warehouse is commercial property.
    Mr. Jones: But industrial premises are not?
    Mr. Graham Page Mr. Graham Page indicated assent.
    Mr. Jones: This is jargon. I share the criticisms of the draughtsmanship of the new clause. I take it, then, that it also includes shop properties, which are commercial premises.
    Therefore, the only exclusion is that of industrial premises. One wonders why industrial premises are excluded. If they are erected and not let it can be said that that is a misuse of resources, and the local authorities have to provide local

    1557
    government services for their protection, and so on. Why does this new clause not extend to the whole range of property?
    Mr. Denis Howell: While I am with the hon. Member so far on what is meant by the definition of commercial buildings I would ask whether the definition also excludes flats and residential accommodation. Flats and residential accommodation are being built and left empty so that they appreciate, and they are not caught by the clause, a matter to which, I hope, the House will direct its attention.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure we shall listen to the hon. Member's advocacy and logic later.
    This is a difficulty with which the Government are faced in trying to deal with what, I am sure, is a small problem in relation to property as a whole in the United Kingdom. I know that it is accentuated by one or two properties in London, but we have not heard of the extension of the problem across the country as a whole. I cannot remember that in Committee there was any reference to any property but this one which has been mentioned tonight. To what extent is this a problem throughout the country? What possible justification can there be for dealing with it in this omnibus fashion?
    We are in a period in which a property such as that to which reference has been made can escalate in value, and with no effort on the part of the owner, but what has led to these exceptional increases in values, not attributable to the owners, is Government policy. It is an exceptional situation which has led to the escalation of property values, and over that situation property owners have no control at all and no judgments of it on their part are required.
    What happens when property prices and values are stable? What happens if we revert to a very common state of affairs between the wars when large numbers of properties were developed and left empty? What happens in those circumstances? What happens in the circumstances with which I know that my right hon. Friend is trying to deal by the new clause—that is, the circumstances in which it is impossible to let property?
    1558
    In exceptional circumstances in which, as we have seen in the whole of the postwar period, property development takes place, one can get away with an imposition of the character of this one in this clause, but to generalise over a substantial period of years in this way cannot be wise. It is a reflection of the inadequacies of ODP control, especially where office premises are involved. In trying to hit the office premises the Government, with this inadequate and blunt instrument, are affecting all properties—with the exception of the industrial and domestic, as has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). What is to happen to the developer? Will he, by an imposition of this character, be deterred from development, whether he is an office builder or a warehouse developer?
    Is the new clause to apply to local authority schemes? Many local authorities have town centre development schemes. There is no guarantee that upon their completion the properties will be tenanted or required by tenants. What happens to the joint schemes of local authorities and private developers, and which are an increasing part of town centre development schemes?
    This is a grave matter to which the Government have given inadequate attention. They are not having regard to the almost immediate consequences in terms of development and certainly not to the long-term considerations.
    8.45 p.m.
    My other point is one which I raised in Committee. To deal with a problem of this character by means of rating is an absurdity. I agree that vacant properties require services, and to that extent local authorities, properly, should have rights to levy rates on empty properties. That right was introduced some years ago but was not widely adopted because the cost of collection of even 100 per cent. of the annual rate was considered by many authorities not to be worth while as a financial proposition. But why should the income that local authorities will secure if there are many schemes in which there is application of these penal rates of taxation—which is, after all, what it is—to go into the rate fund? Surely this is a Central Government problem and one which is

    1559
    unrelated to local government revenues? What possible justification can there be for associating empty properties—beyond the 100 per cent. rate—with anything to do with local government services?
    I should have thought that a far better avenue for dealing with this problem would have been the new Housing Bill which we are likely to see later this Session. It is most inappropriate for the problem to be dealt with under this Bill. The outcome will be a whole series of arguments about the definitions, which will be quite inadequate, and this will lead to a tremendous amount of litigation in addition to the other consequences which I have mentioned.
    Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) struggled manfully to put on a progressive veneer, but occasionally such a veneer becomes punctured. The almost Pavlovian reaction to the very mild endorsement by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) of an entirely peaceful demonstration to draw attention once again to the problem about which the Government were promising blood and thunder well over a year ago is an example of how any mention of property touches deep springs in the rather withered hearts of Conservative hon. Members.
    I should like to follow up the point made by the Minister when he said that to give discretion in this matter is inappropriate as a matter of national policy. The whole point about the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has touched upon is that it gives a flexibility and means that because of that flexibility it destroys any possibility of a developer making calculations as to his outgoings, in paying the punitive rates suggested by the Government and the appreciation in value which he may expect by leaving premises empty. It produces an uncertainty in his mind which means that he can no longer draw up a cynical balance sheet and decide that it will pay him to leave premises empty for years.
    The hon. Member for Northants, South said that we talk much about Centre Point. He asked how many other examples there were. For years in Bristol
    1560
    we had an enormous block known as Clifton Heights. It stood empty for years. It was the subject of a great deal of adverse comment in the newspapers, because we have a desperate housing situation in Bristol. In the vicinity of Clifton Heights there was no property with which that block could be compared.
    In addition to that matter, there is a weakness in the clause in that it does not deal with blocks of flats. During a recent by-election at Hove there was a great deal of Press comment about a block of 13 flats which had been empty for three years. A number of these flats had been improved through improvement grants provided from public money, yet the flats had never been occupied. The state of play at Hove during the by-election was that the developer and owner of the flats had applied to the planning committee for permission to demolish the lot and to erect a new block.
    There are abuses which need to be tackled. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is always open to argument and persuasion, the increased flexibility which my hon. Friend has pressed on him, particularly through the medium of sub-amendments (c) and (d).
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: I very much welcome the clause. I should like to think, in all modesty, that it is at least in part the result of an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) and supported by myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and eight Opposition Members in Committee. The clause, complex and complicated as it is, seems to me, although I am not a legal expert or an etymologist, to fit the bill. Whatever its defects, it goes considerably further than did what I considered to be a watered-down amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) which sought merely power to double the rate.
    When I heard the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) speak of multiplying the rates ten or fifteen times, I wondered whether he had been converted to the view of my hon. Friend the Membr for Devizes and myself by the eloquence of our speeches in Committee and had come

    1561
    to realise that perhaps this clause was the way to deal with an unsavoury and unsocial development which has been referrred to by the hon. Member for Widnes as the Centre Point scandal.
    Mr. Oakes: Yes, I have been converted. My amendment in Committee was far too weak. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) was much stronger than is the new clause. When a Conservative supporter put forward a good idea I was converted and was prepared to support it. I prefer the amendment moved in Committee to the clause.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept his reservations about the wording of the clause to make it watertight. If those reservations are proved then my hon. Friend's amendment is much tougher, but, if not, the clause is adequate.
    Although I was disappointed that sub-amendments (a) and (b) were not taken with the clause, the purport of the amendments was covered when my right hon. Friend said that the new Section 17B(5) more than met what I set out to do in my sub-amendments (a) and (b). If that is not so, what worries me is that someone might be able to let one floor of the building to get round the clause, which would not be a satisfactory solution. Sub-amendment (a) refers to 50 per cent. of the total floor area, but in his remarks about the new Section 17B(5) my right hon. Friend mentioned four-fifths of the building.
    We were invited to comment on possible loopholes. It may well be that the circulation space in a commercial property—by that I mean not only the corridor spaces, but the lifts, staircase circulation and ancillaries such as store rooms and toilets—might of themselves constitute a sizeable proportion of a building such as this. It might be said in a court of law that those parts of the building should be included in the total when only a relatively small part of the office space has been let to a tenant. I put that forward as a suggestion on which it might be necessary to make some explicit statement clarifying the meaning of subsection (5) of 17(B) of the new clause.
    When local planning authorities give permissions, particularly for commercial
    1562
    premises and, of course, office blocks, they base their decision—and I speak as a town planning consultant—on whether to grant or refuse permission on three factors. The first matter is whether a building is in an area, within the development plan of a town or city, which is intended for the use to which the application applies, so that one does not have offices in residential areas or heavy industry in recreation areas. In other words, there must be the land use application test. Secondly, planning applications must be judged on aesthetic or visual merits. Thirdly, in considering applications for office blocks and other commercial premises, few local planning authorities will give permission unless there is a need for them.
    Since Centre Point has been referred to—and I understand that it is owned by Oldham Estates, of which Mr. Harry Hyams owns a substantial part—I refuse to believe that Camden Borough Council or its predecessor a few years before 1964 would ever have given permission for Centre Point if it had known that it was to remain unoccupied for a decade.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that that permission was given by the Labour-controlled LCC, without consulting what was then the metropolitan borough of Holborn.
    Mr. Chapman: The House will be grateful for that information. That building has been left unoccupied for 10 years. If one wanted to make a political point—which I would never wish to do—one would say that if this matter exercises the Opposition so deeply, they could have taken some action before 1970. At least I congratulate my own side, if somewhat belatedly, on taking action now. It is a scandal to have allowed that building to be unoccupied. Surely no hon. Member of this House is naive enough to believe that the owner of those premises had made any real attempt to tenant at least a portion of it in the last ten years. I believe that subsection (5) of the new clause will be a proper way to test whether an owner has made a real attempt to let the building. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Widnes about the etymology of the phrase "tried his best". I do not know the answer to that but

    1563
    doubtless than can be tested in a court of law.
    In commending the clause to the House unamended, I believe that people who perhaps talk a shade too glibly about the ease with which office blocks could be converted into dwelling units or flats should examine all the technical problems involved. In many cases such a change would mean a complete alteration of the building. I do not say that this cannot be done, but I suggest that it cannot be done merely by a new planning application for a change of use. An office building such as Centre Point—although it has 36 flats in it—in terms of the vast majority of its total floor area is impracticable for conversion into much-needed flats in that part of London unless a great deal of money is spent on it.
    These points apart, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who cannot be present for reasons already explained to my right hon. Friend, and as one who supported the original amendment in Committee, I give the new clause every support.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome a great deal of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said in his very balanced view of the position. I rise to intervene simply because I am amazed to think that any hon. Member of this House is prepared to criticise these proposals and the seemly and very proper action the other weekend of the enforced occupation on grounds of trespass.
    I am one of many who have trespassed in one way or another on a number of occasions in the past on to private land. I am glad to say that many advances in our legislation have been achieved after mass trespass. They have provided one or two glorious pages in our history. I like to believe that this trespass will lead to an equally glorious move.
    The clause is a faltering step towards the recognition of social values as against the most extreme view of property values. I am a little sorry that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is not with us on this occasion. He made a remarkably impassioned speech in Committee in defence of the property owner and in general opposition to any suggestion of
    1564
    penal legislation in however modest a form. It would have been interesting to have a repetition of that point of view today, however archaic.
    Unless we are prepared to move in this way and to express clearly the predominance of social values over the extreme and out-dated view of private property values, I am sure that we shall see a great many more demonstrations, and it is questionable whether they will necessarily be as peaceful as earlier ones have been.
    I have heard it said that the great achievement of those who ruled this country in the past was that they were wise enough to see the writing on the wall in time to realise that they had to adapt themselves to the obvious public demand of the day. Here we have a welcome and modest gesture towards the attitude that we must take. I hope very much that these amendments will be accepted and that there will be many other ways in which we shall demonstrate in the future in support of the predominance of social values while maintaining public good will in our institutions.
    Mr. Finsberg: I condemn unreservedly the remarks made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) joined now, I am sorry to say, by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), a former Minister of the Crown. If the public are beginning to wonder whether Parliament intends to uphold the law, the speeches by those two hon. Gentlemen clearly demonstrate that the rule of law has little interest for the Opposition Front Bench and many of their supporters.
    The law of trespass is the law of the land. I condemn as much as anybody else the activities of the owners of Centre Point, as I shall show later. But the Opposition do not do their argument any good by encouraging people to break the law.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I should be interested to know whether in his condemnation of land trespass the hon. Gentleman goes so far as condemning demonstrations against the evils of private ownership of land in certain places such as the Peak District in the past?
    Mr. Finsberg: We are talking about a demonstration that took place last week when people trespassed, having gained access by pretending to be what they

    1565
    were not. The country will draw the inference from what has been said that the Labour Party encourages law breaking.
    I welcome new Clause 14, even though I had tabled my Amendment No. 9 before the Government put it down. I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber who has taken an active part in dealing with the penalty rating on Centre Point. Long before right hon. Gentlemen opposite were talking about it, some of us were taking action to get money in. I shall come to that later.
    I think that the House should support the new clause fully. It carries into effect some of the intentions behind the Unoccupied Property (Increase of Rate) Bill that the House gave me leave to introduce on 23rd May 1972. On that occasion I said:
    "… I hope that my remarks will enable the Government, in their promised review of local government finance, to remedy some of the existing defects and to adopt at least some of the ideas proposed in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1240.]
    That Bill, amongst other things, called for a penalty rating of up to 125 per cent.
    The Labour Party talks and makes noises, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said, when it had an opportunity to take action to amend the General Rate Act 1967 it did nothing. Therefore, the country should again remember that it takes the Labour Party a long time to wake up on this sort of issue.
    On Centre Point I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) who said that it costs a lot of money to implement the empty rating provisions. On 23rd May 1972, at column 1238 of HANSARD, I pointed out what had been done by the London Borough of Camden. We implemented at the first opportunity—that is, the beginning of the rating year 1968—the provisions of the 1967 Act, and by May 1972 we had collected over £2,138,000 in empty property rates at a cost of less than £85,000. No less than £300,000 came from Centre Point.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, Hear.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster
    1566
    (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is present, because she was a colleague of mine on the Camden Council when the action was beginning to bring money in to the ratepayers.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: My hon. Friend is dealing with properties in Camden of very high rateable value. This is not general throughout the country. He is quoting an exceptional circumstance. I know from my own experience the truth of the remark that I made in my speech.
    Mr. Finsberg: I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was inaccurate. I said that I believed that he was not perhaps following logically the point that I am making. There are many rural areas where the cost of collection is too high. But in the major conurbations—not merely Bristol and London, but other places where I have seen some of these empty properties—the cost of collection is a small percentage of the amount that can be got in.
    I believe that it is right to do something in order to secure penalty rating for local government in the case of this type of property. But if the aim is to get more than the quadruple or quintuple rates proposed by my right hon. Friend, it should become a matter for income tax and should not necessarily mean that a local authority is fortunate enough because the property is in its area, to get that amount of money. At this stage it is necessary to decide that the balance should go to the central Government.
    It is a good thing that the clause has been introduced. I noticed that the hon. Member for Widnes said in his opening remarks that, having welcomed the two previous clauses, he felt that the honeymoon was over. I am not sure whether the words "honeymoon was over" and his disappearance have any connection but I should like to know whether, cutting away the frills of his speech, he intends to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the clause or whether, having led all his troops up the hill by that most eloquent speech, he will decide that the clause is worth while and that he will not vote against it.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I used that expression.
    Mr. Finsberg: Then when the whistle is blown we shall see precisely what the

    1567
    hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) thinks. The Opposition should accept with much better grace than their speeches convey the good intentions behind the clause.
    I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be the first to say that no legislation, not even that drafted by parliamentary draftsmen and introduced by him, could be 100 per cent. foolproof without any sort of loophole. But the House does no good by deciding that it wants to widen the issue because there might be a loophole. It is much wiser, I suggest, to let the clause go through and to give the Government an opportunity in 12 months' time to say that the loophole has appeared. Virtually every Finance Act contains provision to stop a loophole, and no Government are inhibited from introducing 12 months later a stopper for a loophole which has been exposed. The clause is good and it will work. If loopholes appear, I rely upon the Government to close them on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of idle speculation. I use that word without intending any pun.
    What happens to a building where the owners have put in a planning application which involves considerable modifications to the interior and where the local authority sits on the planning application? After two months an owner may, if he wishes, take a deemed refusal. By doing so he condemns himself in many cases to waiting nine or 10 months at least for a public inquiry and a further 12 or 15 months for the result of that inquiry. Some local authorities are sitting on planning applications for four or six months. They are saying to the owners that, if they do not like it, they should take a deemed refusal. But such a course would cost money because the case would have to be fought, and in the meantime the property would remain empty. Some councils are doing this for political purposes, and I have given evidence of that fact to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
    If the owner can show that his planning application has been sat on, that he will not take a deemed refusal because of the additional delay and that the local authority is holding up the application for no good reason, will my right hon. Friend exercise discretion to say that the conditions
    1568
    of the clause are not fulfilled and that the owner will not necessarily have to pay the penalty rating?
    9.15 p.m.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: My right hon. Friend, in introducing the new clause, is seeking to respond to overwhelming public demand that something should be done about Centre Point. It is right that the House should take note of the fact that that is not the only example of a place where cubic feet are available which the public is not able to use. It is a wider problem than Centre Point or even a handful of modern office blocks. The same problem can be detected regarding residential property.
    I did not have the advantage of serving in Committee as have most other Members who have spoken. Therefore, if I do not understand fully the issues which have been raised, I hope that my right hon. Friend will excuse me. As I listened to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) my doubts about the new clause turned into virtually a conviction that it should not pass into law as it stands. I do not like the phrase:
    "the owner has tried his best to let the building …"
    I feel, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) that there may well be occasions, particularly when conversions or when planning applications are involved, when the owner may be innocent. I am concerned that local authorities appear not to be allowed to have any discretion when they themselves may be the cause of a building remaining unlet.
    It occurs to me—and it may be that I have not read the clause sufficiently thoroughly—that there is no limit to its application. It can apply to a skyscraper, which is the sort of building very much in the public mind, or to a village shop in a remote community. It seems that the clause could be much improved by excluding small premises and perhaps old premises as well when the Centre Point situation does not apply.
    Commercial property might be left open because of redecoration or modernisation plans, because of redevelopment scheme or because a building might be awaiting demolition. I can think of such a case in

    1569
    a conservation area where there is good cause for demolition, but while the matter is being decided it would be irresponsible to try to attract tenants as the tenancy might be very short.
    I am concerned about the precedent which the clause sets. I think that it bears the signs of having been set down at haste. It is a long clause, but that does not mean that it is well or tightly drafted. I think that lawyers will make a meal out of it. Possibly it might be much improved if in another place the matter were considered at length. That may be in doubt.
    I am concerned about the use of the rating system to achieve this social purpose. I should not complain if people felt that no concessions should be given in a Centre Point situation or in similar instances. In such circumstances, of course, the owner should be called upon to pay 100 per cent. rates as though the building was fully let. There could be said to be a case for the local authority demanding something more than 100 per cent. rates where, upon defiance of its development plan, it was put to expense in another way. If it provided land for office development which was then not made available for such use, it might have to put itself out to find other land which could be so developed. When the point is reached when the rates double, treble, quadruple and so on, I get more than an uneasy feeling that we are misusing the rates because we have not been able to think of anything better with which to solve the problem.
    I am not saying that we do not have to solve it, because public opinion has spoken absolutely clearly. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are agreed that a solution must be found. I would have thought that we could explore the possibilities of compulsory purchase more fully and that, subject to suitable safeguards, that would have given a much more direct weapon to the Government or to local authorities. I emphasise "subject to suitable safeguards".
    Here we find what is a vindictive use of the rating system to impose fines. It may be that our indignation and frustration over Centre Point will make the House decide to approve this clause as it stands or as amended. I am bound to say with regret that I cannot support my right hon.
    1570
    Friend because I do not like the drafting of this clause. He is using the wrong weapon to deal with the problem and I hope that in the remaining time left he will think again to see whether some better solution cannot be found.
    Mr. James Aliason: I should like to declare an interest as an owner and manager of commercial property. I hasten to say that I have no particular interest here since I do not have any empty property. I am glad that the amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), which I supported, has grown into this clause, which I trust will have the force of law. In London we have excessive rates for office premises arising from the restriction on the free building of further offices which are so much needed.
    Since 1965 we have had the office development permit system and in consequence there is an artificial shortage. It is made all the worse if we have office blocks in London artificially held back from the market. I find Centre Point and similar office blocks offensive. Consequently we need action. The question is, what is the best form of action? The opposition constantly complain about huge untaxed profits accruing to owners of property, the implication being that someone is making a huge profit and putting it into his pocket.
    But it is untaxed because it is unrealised. While it may be the position that Centre Point has risen in value from £5 million to £50 million, I heard it suggested that as a result of this clause it has dropped by £15 million. That shows that this is the way to move. It is not satisfactory to seek to impose a capital gains tax on unrealised profits, but it is possible to have some form of penal taxation. That is what this is. It is in the form of rating rather than taxation because the rating system is better attuned to locating empty commercial property and then to applying a penal rate to it. That imposition reduces the value of a property, which is a move in the right direction. If these properties are left unlet, they will attract increasing penalties and their value will drop further. Thus we will have fewer empty properties at a time of scarcity. I am happy to support the clause.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We have had an interesting debate on what has come to be known as the Centre Point clause. The Opposition recognise that the Minister has gone out of his way to meet the wishes of those who served on the Committee. We have criticism of whether he has managed to achieve what all of us wished him to achieve, but he has had a good cockshy at trying to meet our wishes.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) rather chided one of my hon. Friends about marching forward at a late stage. It is clear that, while my hon. Friend is marching forward, the hon. Gentleman is marching backwards. This is in every way typical of the division between the two sides of the House on these matters. We are dealing, as all hon. Members who have spoken have recognised, with an abuse which gives great offence to most decent people. The ability of people to put up large buildings and see their value appreciate—without genuinely trying to let them—with the eventual hope of reaping a capital appreciation probably gives greater offence than almost anything else in our society.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) sounded a rather strident note in the debate. He also said that, when I gave my advise to the House, I should be blowing a whistle. Bearing in mind the effect of the clause on Mr. Harry Hyams, I cannot resist saying that the hon. Member has got the wrong sport. We do not need the blowing of a whistle. Rather do we need a declaration of no contest.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows—I take it from what he said that he served on Camden Council—the firm which got permission to build that block of offices must have engaged in a degree of deception with the planning authority in the first place. I cannot believe that any planning authority would have given permission for the building of Centre Point—or for Centre Point-type buildings anywhere else—had it thought that the prime object of the exercise by the applicants was to obtain capital appreciation on the building.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major shareholders in Centre Point all along has been the Co-operative Insurance Society?
    1572
    Is he accusing that body of taking part in deception?
    Mr. Howell: I do not know who are the major shareholders in Mr. Hyams's firm. If the Co-operative Insurance Society, which has my investment, is behaving in that way, it is in my view equally to be called to account for not insisting on a proper and more responsible method of investing its money. There may be many other companies, corporations and pension funds involved. I hazard a guess that when they agreed to make an investment for what they thought would be a lucrative return they did not know that they would be involved in anything like this. I do not believe that the Co-operative Insurance Society would have thought that for one moment. But had the society been involved I would have hoped that it made a greater representation about this issue than appears to have been the case.
    I return to the planning point, which is the essence of the matter. No one can erect a building of any sort without planning permission. The case of Centre Point might cause us to examine planning procedures to see whether adequate information has been provided. Where an authority gives planning permission for the building of a Centre Point or similar edifice, if that building is not used for the purpose for which permission was sought I agree that the proper order is a compulsory purchase order. It is not necessary to deal with the matter in the way proposed.
    9.30 p.m.
    A compulsory purchase order on Centre Point is being considered, I understand. We did not wish to pursue the matter, because to a certain extent it must be improper for the House to do so while the reasonable judicial processes of compulsory purchase orders are being conducted outside. Therefore, I will spend no more time on that aspect.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) told us that Camden Council had collected from Centre Point more than £300,000 in rates. That underlines our concern. Rates of £300,000 have been paid on an empty building and, as far as I can judge, that has made not an iota of difference to the intention of Mr. Hyams to let the building. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is saying what

    1573
    we are saying—that, far as the Minister has gone to try to meet us, we are still left with every reason for misgivings about whether super-rating of the premises will meet the situation.
    I also agree with the hon. Member who said that we should not become totally bogged down about Centre Point. There are many other buildings where the same sort of thing is going on. The clause deals only with commercial premises and not with residential properties. Perhaps it should be changed to cover residential properties. There has recently come to my attention the story of a block of flats within a very short walking distance of the House where, as the lease of the individual flats has run out, the landlord has been refusing to re-let them. He has been keeping them empty for long periods because he knows that within four or five years the whole building will be empty and will bring him a tremendous capital appreciation. That is probably in many ways even more offensive than the Centre Point case.
    A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the phrase "tried his best" in the clause. If a developer can show that he has tried his best to let the premises, he can escape the financial penalties. I do not know where the phrase comes from. I have encountered it only at school. It seems to me to be a headmaster's phrase. That led me to the conclusion that it was drafted by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and that it has nothing to do with the Department of the Environment, which I have always thought, after my experience there, was able to draft better than that. The point has been made very truly that the lawyers will have great pickings from defending cases under the clause. I hope that better phraseology can be provided in another place.
    We place great store on our two sub-amendments. The first deals with the inadequacy, proved by the experience of the hon. Member for Hampstead, of the financial penalties, even though they go further than anything contemplated in Committee, for which I express my appreciation.
    I shall not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the clause, because we are not marching our troops up the hill and down again. That is what the Prime
    1574
    Minister does every now and again when he decides to have an election and then has to reverse his strategy to take account of the fact that he cannot have an election on the day he has chosen. It is normal that, although we regard the clause as inadequate, we recognise that it is better than anything else we have. It represents a genuine attempt by the Government to meet the wishes of both sides of the Committee. It would be churlish in those circumstances to vote against the clause. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves, if our amendments are not acceptable, to vote for it.
    The first of our amendments deals with the super-rating of these properties. The reason why we want to go further than the Government propose is because the rate of inflation is galloping on under them and because their proposals do not take account of the rate of inflation on empty properties.
    The other amendment, which we regard as even more important, should be a factor when local authorities determine whether there is any willingness to convert empty properties into flats or homes for people. Indeed, in my constituency we know that a number of properties were built because the local authority encouraged developers to build as it believed that there would be a lot of redevelopment. The result is that we now have probably too many empty flats in Birmingham. The answer to the problem is to convert those buildings for the homeless. Such action is desperately needed. The test is whether the developers are prepared to convert commercial premises into domestic residential premises.
    I hope that the Minister will accept sub-amendments (c) or (d). If not, I must ask my hon. Friends to record their support of our case in the Lobby.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful for the constructive debate on the clause. I knew only too well that in embarking on a new idea in legislation I was bound to be criticised. To call it "cockshy" was unkind. I do not think I have made a "cock" of it. I think that it will achieve its purpose.
    The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said that the new clause does little to tackle the mischief of the empty property and the hon. Member for South

    1575
    Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said it was a faltering step. But they have forgotten that this is part of a package. Although it is not an occasion to discuss the other parts of the package here, I must necessarily mention the heavy taxation liability, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated he will impose on capital gains from these properties. There was also the announcement about the Housing Bill which will be before the House in a matter of days and which will include provisions for taking over management of those properties and letting them so that they serve the purpose for which they were erected.
    This is the package—the taxation liability, heavily increased power to take over the management of property and the surcharge rating.
    The phrase "Try his best" has been criticised, although it expresses in decent English, without terrible legal complications, what we intend through the clause. If an owner has not "tried his best" to let property the clause should apply to him. The hon. Member for Widnes asked who would decide whether an owner had tried his best. In the first instance, of course, the rating authority would do so in imposing the surcharge. But there are two ways in which this can be questioned and brought before the court—either by an appeal under Section 7 of the General Rate Act 1967 or by defence to an action by the local authority to recover the surcharge.
    The hon. Member also said that, in many cases, when one is considering the guidance to be given about whether an owner has tried his best, there are no similar properties with which to compare it so as to ascertain a comparable rent. He asked what was meant by it being let "in parts" and asked questions about estate agents. But this subsection is intended only as guidance. It says that "regard shall be had" to those subjects,
    "… as well as other relevant factors".
    These categories are not meant to be exclusive of any other considerations. All the considerations which would help a court, or in the first instance a rating authority and then a court, to decide whether someone had tried his best to let a property should be taken into account. The matters that the hon. Member
    1576
    mentioned would all be relevant and admissible in evidence, I should have thought, if the rating authority's claim to surcharge were questioned in the court.
    On sub-amendment (c), the hon. Member for Widnes said that it was not enough to double, treble or raise even higher in progressive increases the surcharge—that this was an insufficent deterrent. His sub-amendment would enable a rating authority, with the Secretary of State's consent, to increase the amount of the penalty after the first 12 months of non-use of the commercial building.
    I must repeat that the new clause creates a penal surcharge and there should not be a different penalty in one area as against another. Any Secretary of State would also have a difficult job to know how to discriminate, when to give his consent to a special rating of this sort in one area. The sub-amendment suggests no basis on which his discretion should be exercised and leaves the way open for entirely arbitrary action by the Secretary of State in such a situation. Parliament should fix the rates of the surcharge and leave it at that in this part of the package against an owner who is keeping his property empty deliberately.
    Turning to sub-amendment (d), if property stands empty, surely it should attract the penalty. It should not matter whether the owner has tried to switch the use of the property. If he wants to change the use, let him do so ; let him get planning permission and carry out that change. Until he has done so, he should be liable to the penalty.
    Sub-amendment (d) would produce quite the wrong result. It would encourage applications to convert to housing, but applications which perhaps were doomed to failure and were made for that very purpose.
    Mr. Idris Owen: We have been discussing penalties in the context of massive profits, assuming that they are going on ad infinitum, but we are rapidly reaching the stage of stabilisation and perhaps even de-escalation of property prices. If we are thinking in terms of penalties, the interest charges on the capital cost could be penalties in themselves. Many homes built on a speculative basis at the moment are being sold

    1577
    at less than cost so that the small developer can recover some of the capital on which he has to pay fantastic interest charges. To add to that the penalty that my right hon. Friend suggests would drag people into bankruptcy. We must be fair.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I find difficulty in fitting that into what I was saying. My hon. Friend has made a very good speech in his intervention, but perhaps I may continue with the point I was making on the sub-amendment.
    I was suggesting that a phoney planning application might be put in merely to delay the position and escape the imposition of the surcharge. I think it best to leave the clause as it is, and then nothing is weakened. Add the words of the sub-amendment, and an evasion device is built into the clause.
    I must advise my hon. Friends to resist both these sub-amendments and stick to the clause as we have it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-ants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) asked why it did not apply to industrial premises. We do not think that there is a comparable mischief there and we would not wish to extend it to that kind of property. The same remarks apply to residential property, although we have the sort of case mentioned of the flats in Hove. Where a residential property like that is left vacant there is power of compulsory purchase for housing purposes. This might easily apply to the sort of case which has been mentioned and we do not need the penalty in that case ; we have other methods. We are creating this new penalty. I do not think we should extend it to penalise those against whom there is little if any public distrust or antagonism. The ordinary 100 per cent.—mentioned in Clause 15—on empty properties should suffice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South also asked whether the new clause applies to local authority schemes or joint schemes between local authorities and private enterprise for building offices in city centres. Of course, a local authority would be liable, as anybody else, if it deliberately kept vacant commercial property which it built, but I think it stretches imagination a little far to think a local authority
    1578
    would deliberately do that. I do not think that that is a very important point for the purpose of the mischief with which we are here dealing.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) said that sub-amendment (c) would give flexibility, but I do not think that it is right, when one is dealing with the creation of a new penalty, that one should give that flexibility to the local authority concerned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) raised points included in sub-amendments which he had on the Paper but which have not been discussed, but I will deal with the points as he put them in his speech. His first sub-amendment, in line 2, after "building", to insert
    "or over 50 per cent. of the total floor area of it"
    is, I can assure him, quite unnecessary. The new Section 17B(5) in the new clause provides for the purposes of the surcharge that a hereditament shall be considered as being used on any day for its purpose if only four-fifths of it were so used on that day. That covers the point with which my hon. Friend was concerned. The same point arises in his second sub-amendment. Section 17B(5) covers that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has long crusaded on this subject and has very considerable knowledge of it, and he raised again the question of planning applications for modification of premises, and a local authority holding up a planning application as an excuse for getting out of surcharge. In a proper case it would come within another relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the man had tried his best to let the property. But I should not like to introduce a specific subparagraph on this matter for fear that we would build in what I called just now a "phoney" device or a "phoney" planning application in order to delay matters.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) also raised the question of residential property. I say again that we can deal with this under compulsory purchase for the purpose

    1579
    of housing if necessary. I would not be satisfied to deal with this subject purely on the basis of compulsory purchase because in many cases that is exactly what the owner wants—someone to take the property off his hands at the market valuation which the district valuer may put at a figure which is quite satisfactory to the owner, who may be quite prepared to get rid of it. We want the property to be used for the purpose for which it was built and the power to take it over for management will satisfy that desire.
    I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) for supporting the idea of doing this through the rates. There is every reason to say that the local authority in these cases should have the benefit of the surcharge. This is a form of rating. I

    Division No. 32.]

    AYES

    [9.53 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

    Mackie, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Foot, Michael

    Marks, Kenneth

    Atkinson, Norman

    Forrester, John

    Marquand, David

    Austick, David

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Marsden, R.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Beaney, Alan

    Golding, John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Berth, A. J.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Gourlay, Harry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Bishop, E. S.

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Molloy, William

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Booth, Albert

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Oakes, Gordon

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Oram, Bert

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Brown, Robert C. (N'ctle-u-Tyne, W.)

    Hardy, Peter

    Oswald, Thomas

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Harper, Joseph

    Palmer, Arthur

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hatton, F.

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Probert Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Horam, John

    Radice, Giles

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Rose, Paul B

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Janner, Greville

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    John, Brynmor

    Sillars, James

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Kelley, Richard

    Stallard, A. W.

    Deakins, Eric

    Kerr, Russell

    Steel, David

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lamborn, Harry

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Dempsey, James

    Lamond, James

    Strang, Gavin

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lawson, George

    Swain, Thomas

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Tinn, James

    Dunn, James A.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Tope, Graham

    Dunnett, Jack

    Loughlin, Charles

    Torney, Tom

    Eadie, Alex

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Varley, Eric G.

    Ellis, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Evans, Fred

    McElhone, Frank

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Faulds, Andrew

    McGuire, Michael

    Weitzman, David

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Machin, George

    Wellbeloved, James

    should like to see that go to the local authorities to benefit the rate revenue.
    I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised in the debate. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Amendment proposed: sub-amendment (c) in line 20, at end insert—
    ' (3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) above, the rating authority may with the consent of the Secretary of State after the first 12 months of the period of non-use levy by greater multiples of the normal rates than those specified while the period of non-use lasts '.—[Mr. Oakes.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made to the proposed clause:
    The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 166.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollck)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Whitehead, Philip

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mr. Michael Cocks and

    Whitlock, William

    Woof, Robert

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Gurden, Harold

    Normanton, Tom

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Astor, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hastings, Stephen

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Awdry, Daniel

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Batsford, Brian

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

    Hicks, Robert

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Bell, Ronald

    Hiley, Joseph

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Benyon, W.

    Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Biffen, John

    Holland, Philip

    Redmond, Robert

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Hornby, Richard

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bowden, Andrew

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Bray, Ronald

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sainsbury, Timothy

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    James, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Burden, F. A.

    Jopling, Michael

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Shersby, Michael

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Simeons, Charles

    Carlisle, Mark

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Channon, Paul

    Kimball, Marcus

    Soref, Harold

    Chapman, Sydney

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Spence, John

    Clark, William (Surrey. E.)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Sproat, lain

    Clegg, Walter

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Stainton, Keith

    Cockeram, Eric

    Kirk, Peter

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Cooke, Robert

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Coombs, Derek

    Knox, David

    Sutcliffe, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

    Lamont, Norman

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Lane, David

    Tebbit, Norman

    Costain, A. P.

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

    Loveridge, John

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Luce, R. N.

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Dykes, Hugh

    MacArthur, Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    McLaren, Martin

    Waddington, David

    Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Madel, David

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mather, Carol

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fidler, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Winterton Nicholas

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Worsley, Sir Marcus

    Fowler, Norman

    Moate, Roger

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Gardner, Edward

    Money, Ernle

    Younger, Hn. George

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Monro, Hector

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gray, Hamish

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Mr. Marcus Fox and

    Green, Alan

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mudd, David

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Neave, Airey

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Amendment proposed: sub-amendment (d) in line 38, at end insert—
' (f) whether or not the owner has made attempts to obtain planning consent to use the building for housing purposes as an alternative to commercial development and if successful has advertised the housing accommodation for sale or rent '.—[Mr. Oakes.]
Question put. That the amendment be made to the proposed Clause.

Division No. 33.]

AYES

[10.3 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Millan, Bruce

Armstrong, Ernest

Foot, Michael

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Ashton, Joe

Forrester, John

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Atkinson Normen

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Molloy, William

Austick, David

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Golding, John

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A. J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Oram, Bert

Bidwell, Sydney

Gourlay, Harry

Orbach, Maurice

Bishop, E. S.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Oswald, Thomas

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Palmer, Arthur

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Booth, Albert

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Price, William (Rugby)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Probert, Arthur

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Radice, Giles

Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

Hardy, Peter

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Harper, Joseph

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Rose, Paul B.

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Hatton, F.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hooson, Emlyn

Rowlands, Ted

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Horam, John

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Carmichael, Neil

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Sillars, James

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Silverman, Julius

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Huckfield, Leslie

Skinner, Dennis

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Concannon, J. D.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Conlan, Bernard

Janner, Greville

Spriggs, Leslie

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

John, Brynmor

Stallard, A. W.

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Steel, David

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Dalyell, Tarn

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Strang, Gavin

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Swain, Thomas

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kaufman, Gerald

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Kelley, Richard

Tinn, James

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Kerr, Russell

Tope, Graham

Deakins, Eric

Lamborn, Harry

Torney, Tom

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Tuck, Raphael

Dempsey, James

Lawson, George

Varley, Eric G.

Dormand, J. D.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wainwright, Edwin

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lomas, Kenneth

Weitzman, David

Dunn, James A.

Loughlin, Charles

Wellbeloved, James

Dunnett Jack

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Eadie, Alex

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Edelman, Maurice

McBride, Neil

Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, Tom

McElhone, Frank

Whitlock, William

Evans, Fred

McGuire, Michael

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Faulds, Andrew

Machin, George

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackie, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Woof, Robert

Marks, Kenneth

Marquand, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Marsden, F.

Mr. Michael Cocks and

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Mr. Donald Coleman.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Burden, F. A.

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Eyre, Reginald

Astor, John

Carlisle, Mark

Fidler, Michael

Atkins, Humphrey

Channon, Paul

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Awdry, Daniel

Chapman, Sydney

Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

Batsford, Brian

Clegg, Walter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

Cockeram, Eric

Fookes, Miss Janet

Benyon, W.

Cooke, Robert

Fowler, Norman

Bitten, John

Coombs, Derek

Gardner, Edward

Biggs-Davison, John

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Cormack, Patrick

Gower, Sir Raymond

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Costain, A. P.

Gray, Hamish

Bowden, Andrew

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Green, Alan

Bray, Ronald

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Dykes, Hugh

Gummer, J. Selwyn

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Gurden, Harold

Bryan, Sir Paul

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Haselhurst, Alan

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 163.

Hastings, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Scott-Hopkins, James

Havers, Sir Michael

Madel, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Hawkins, Paul

Mather, Carol

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mawby, Ray

Shersby, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Simeons, Charles

Hiley, Joseph

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hill, John E. B. (Nortolk, S.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Soref, Harold

Holland, Philip

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Spence, John

Holt, Miss Mary

Moate, Roger

Sproat, lain

Hornby, Richard

Money, Ernle

Stainton, Keith

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howell, David (Guildford)

Monro, Hector

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Sutcliffe, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

James, David

Mudd, David

Tebbit, Norman

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Neave, Airey

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Jopling, Michael

Normanion, Tom

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Tugendhat, Christopher

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Kershaw, Anthony

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kimball, Marcus

Parkinson, Cecil

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Percival, Ian

Waddington, David

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kinsey, J. R.

Pink, R. Bonner

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Kirk, Peter

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Ward, Dame Irene

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Knox, David

Proudfoot, Wilfred

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Lamont, Norman

Redmond, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Lane, David

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Worsley, Sir Marcus

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Loveridge, John

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Younger, Hn. George

Luce, R. N.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

MacArthur, Ian

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McCrindle, R. A.

Sainsbury, Timothy

Mr. Marcus Fox and

McLaren, Martin

Scott, Nicholas

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause added to the Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  New Clause 7

    POWER OF RATING AUTHORITY TO USE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LOCAL FINANCE
    ' A rating authority may by resolution operate within its area such financial schemes other than the levying of taxes which may be approved by the Secretary of State and in particular may derive revenue from the purchase, sale, letting and management of property for any purpose.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.)
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this clause it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 4—Charging scheme for Hotels in Greater London:
    ' (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Greater London Council may submit to the Secretary of State a scheme permitting the levying of charges by that Council in respect of hotel bedroom accommodation in Greater London so as to enable that Council to raise additional revenue.
    (2) On the submission to him of a scheme under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consider all the circumstances of the case and shall consult with any other local authorities, bodies or persons who shall appear to him to be concerned, and if he is satisfied that the scheme should be implemented either with or without modifications, he may by Order make regulations to that effect.
    (3) Every Order made under subsection (2) above shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of that House '.
    Mr. Howell: New Clause 7 deals with alternative ways of raising finance for local authorities. All who study the continuing difficulties of local authorities and the continual frustration of ratepayers realise that the almost total reliance upon rates as the sole means of raising revenue for local authorities is more and more being held in question by ratepayers.
    I do not need to rehearse all the arguments. They are well known. The rating system is totally unfair. It bears unfairly between one family and another and between one house and another. I confess that it has so far been found impossible by most judges to produce a system which improves upon it.
    I do not believe that we have tackled the question as energetically as we should have done. Soon we shall have
    1588
    to move at least in the direction of relating local taxes to incomes. That is not the situation now.
    The present system of property tax—that is what rating is—is more and more being held in contempt by our citizens. Therefore, we shall have to move in the direction that I have indicated. I hope that the Department will put in hand studies on that subject. I am sure that if it proved possible to relate incomes to the finance required for the running of local services, there would be a large measure of agreement right across the parties. I do not think it would become a party situation at all. But that is not a situation with which we can deal tonight.
    10.15 p.m.
    We must confine ourselves to a clause, operated only with the approval of the Secretary of State, which would enable local authorities to consider other ways than the traditional method of rating for raising revenue. It is time that local authorities went into the property business themselves. Many of them are already in it and increasingly they are having to do it by establishing companies and attracting money from private sources as well as using their own money. There is no reason why local authorities should not operate property companies as of right as part of their normal function. The increasing value of sites on which property developers make large fortunes is almost entirely due to the community building up services which enhance the value. It seems to the Opposition that it is totally wrong that property development should be almost exclusively in private hands. The comunity creates the value and it should get a far bigger share of it than at present. An adventurous programme by local government in this direction would be very welcome.
    There should be much more opportunity for local authorities to go in for municipal trading, and the clause provides for that. Yet none of these things is new. They have all been pioneered in earlier days and I pay tribute to the Conservatives and Liberals in this respect. In my city they were pioneered by Joseph Chamberlain, in his halcyon days as a Liberal, and then as a Conservative. Corporation industry developed in Birmingham was probably the first example of the sort of thing I have in mind of a

    1589
    local authority getting hold of the land and developing it. The commercial interest and the value of that to the citizens of Birmingham is now enormous.
    I am sorry that we do not hear more about this side of the work of Joseph Chamberlain. It did not stop with the development of property and assets. He went on to develop some of the finest examples of municipal socialism one can find. I refer particularly to the water, electricity and gas services in the city and to the Municipal Bank. It is possible to enumerate all this pioneering work. There must be plenty of opportunities for new forms of municipal trading to emerge. As I explained, I almost made my debut in local government circles in 1946 by becoming shortly afterwards chairman of the civic restaurants department in Birmingham. That department was handicapped as were all municipal restaurants by an Act which said that restaurants could not make a loss for three years running—they could not take one year with another for this purpose. One of the aims of the Bill is to remove that restriction. Many local authorities were required during the war to provide municipal restaurants because they were essential and because private enterprise could not provide them. However, they were forced to close down their municipal trading departments afterwards. In view of the private restaurants in this country there surely must be a place for municipal trading there.
    We do not wish any of these municipal trading undertakings to be subsidised unfairly by the ratepayers. We want them to trade fairly with private enterprise. If that happens no one could have an ideological objection. New Clause 4 will help London and other local authorities, particularly Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick. This clause promotes the idea of a tourist or bedroom tax. There is much to be said for this. The services provided for tourists are expensive. The demand for water and drainage facilities can increase enormously in the summer. It is reasonable to suggest that tourists should make a modest contribution towards this expense.
    We cannot allow the system of local government in London to be bogged down, as it has been for generations, by a single type of tax. We have to be
    1590
    adventurous in our thinking and new Clauses 4 and 7 will help us to be just that. I hope that the Minister will find those clauses reasonable, and, if he cannot accept them tonight, will welcome them in principle. It may be that the terminology needs to be improved, and we would accept that. I hope he realises that in putting these clauses forward we are providing him and his successors with safeguards for the future.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: I regret that it has been necessary to frame new Clause 7 so as to include the words:
    "other than the levying of taxes."
    I have been trying to get the Government to think in terms of re-casting the whole of the rating system for some time. At present valuation is based upon a notional rent. In recent revaluations the ludicrous nature of this notional rent has been underlined. It is an archaic system and we ought to reconsider it seriously, irrespective of party.
    I estimate that there are 9 million adults who do not pay any rates. We frequently come across the anomalous situation whereby two retired adults living in a house on a pension have to pay full rates because they do not qualify for rate relief while next door, in an identical propety, there can be four adults in full-time employment, only two of whom pay rates. Any one of the four people living in the second house could be substantially better off than the two retired people.
    Mr. Idris Owen: That is what we did.
    Mr. Loughlin: Conservative Members should listen. I am not scoring party political points. I am trying to illustrate the fallacy of the present system.
    Mr. Idris Owen: I was not being facetious, but merely commenting that that is just the reasoning which we applied to the rent rebate scheme.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that there could be a situation in which two retired people, by virtue of their incomes, could be just outside the scope of the rate rebate. Of course, there are many bachelors, for example, who are using all the services for which rates are levied such as lighting, sewerage and the emptying

    1591
    of dustbins. People in that category may not pay any rates. The whole system of notional rent payments is ludicrous in the extreme. I am sorry that the Bill does not deal with that. Taxes of a local character would be far more equitable than the present system.
    This is a loosely worded clause. It refers to:
    "schemes other than the levying of taxes"
    and then says:
    "and in particular may derive revenue from the purchase…".
    The preceding words give a rather wider remit to local authorities for the operation of financial schemes, subject to the overriding authority of the Secretary of State. If the latter part of the clause is ignored, which might stimulate the adrenalin of some Conservative Members, the first part of the clause would be extremely useful to many local authorities.
    Local authorities could enter into property management. It would be possible for them to build houses for sale. One of the most remarkable features of the past six months—and this applies in my constituency and to an increasing number of other constituencies—is that builders who have built houses as a speculation have been trying to sell them to local authorities. In many cases authorities have had to turn them down because the standard of building was not sufficiently high to meet their standard, which is based on the Parker Morris standard.
    If that is true, if speculative builders can build houses of a lower quality and at a higher price than the local authorities, it would be doubly valuable for the community if local authorities could build houses for sale. They could legitimately earn a reasonable surplus on the houses they were building for sale and yet at the same time provide a higher standard house to the purchasers in the locality.
    10.30 p.m.
    Therefore, even the latter part of the clause would be of tremendous value in two ways. It would enable local authorities to obtain revenue to offset the massive increases in rates that have taken place in the past three years and are bound to take place this year. All local authorities, even though there is a White
    1592
    Paper due in which the Government propose to increase the domestic element of relief, will this year face substantial increases in rates. If a local authority could build houses of the right quality it would doubly benefit in that it could obtain income to offset some of those increases and at the same time build houses to the standard required.
    Local authorities are having to turn down houses built by speculators who cannot sell them in the market, who need a cash flow which they cannot obtain and therefore offer the houses to the authorities. If the authorities have to turn them down on the ground that the quality of building is too low, it is about time they were allowed to build houses for the double purpose to which I have referred.
    I believe that many local authorities could produce schemes in keeping with the clause. In the final analysis the Minister has the right to veto or approve such schemes. Serious consideration must be given to the enormous problems facing the local authorities, which have to find a substantial amount of money for the services that are increasingly being demanded by the ratepayers. There is inequity in meeting the additional costs from the rates, because they apply to some people and not others. About 9 million people escape paying rates. We must get down to the problem of devising ways and means of ensuring that the local authorities have sufficient revenue in one way or another to maintain the kind of standards to which people have become accustomed in the services for which rates are used.
    Mr. Harry Lamborn: As one who was a member of the Greater London Council for many years, I know that members on both sides of the council have examined many alternative methods of raising revenue. During the Green Paper consultations on the Bill, officers of the GLC put forward for consideration various methods of raising additional revenue. The council came to the conclusion that, in a city like London, with vast resources for the visitor, a hotel levy on bedroom accommodation was an ideal method, and that the revenue so raised could be spent on providing more facilities for visitors. The GLC estimated that an average charge of £100 a year,

    1593
    with the more expensive hotels paying more and the less expensive paying less, would yield about £6 million a year.
    Anyone examining our rating system would certainly agree that additional ways of raising revenue are certainly desirable. New Clause 4 would enable the GLC to submit a scheme for levying charges on these lines. This avenue should be explored, and the ideal place for an experiment would be Greater London.
    Mr. Graham Page: I must agree with much of the criticism of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) of the way in which we raise the money for local government expenditure. No Minister can disregard the criticism that in many cases the rating system falls unfairly on one household as compared with another. We put forward in a Green Paper two or three years ago the pros and cons of various different forms of raising this revenue. The arguments for and against each appeared in the Green Paper, and the comments we had upon each, along with the study made of the subject, convinced us that at that time the difficulties of the system were such that we should not impose such a change on local authorities at the time of reorganisation.
    In a consultation paper issued fairly recently, preparatory to this Bill, it was pointed out that the Government believed that the public would not welcome, at the present time of price and pay restrictions, the imposition of new taxes locally. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
    "No one should be surprised that the Bill contains no new taxes to replace the rates, because we made quite clear in the consultation paper published last June why we did not propose to allow local authorities to introduce any new local taxes at this time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1973 ; Vol. 864, c. 36.]
    My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that it was, firstly, at the time of price restraint and, second, at the time of reorganisation, when local authorities would not have been anxious for further upheaval in local administration. But I added to that point in Committee. On 22nd November last I said:
    "I have said on many occasions that although we are retaining the rating system this is not necesarily the end of the story and if
    1594
    there are further sources of revenue, which are particularly appropriate to London"—
    I was dealing then with an amendment relating to London—
    "it may be that it would be proper to introduce them by a private Bill, but certainly our minds are open on that subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd November 1973 ; c. 54.]
    Indeed, our minds are open on all methods of raising additional revenue for local government purposes.
    To introduce any new system of revenue at this moment, however, would run counter to those Government statements which I have quoted and would throw local authorities into some confusion, especially if, as in these new clauses, the system were dependent upon the approval of the Secretary of State. There would at once be queries as to what sort of scheme a Secretary of State would approve should the local authorities bring this into their budgets right away, that is, if we introduced it into the Bill at this stage. Again, I am very sympathetic towards any remedies for the unfairness in many cases of the present rating system.
    New Clause 7 takes the matter only a little way, as the hon. Member for Small Heath made clear in his advocacy of the new clause. If I read it correctly and if I understand his argument correctly, he wanted to give the local authorities, first, the power to enter into the property business further than they do at present, and, second, to increase their power of municipal trading.
    Concerning the property business, I should have thought that local authorities are well in it at present, and many local authorities are using their powers very effectively not only in housing developments but in comprehensive developments of town centres, both on their own and in conjunction with private enterprise.
    When further opportunity arises in legislation we shall certainly look to see whether the powers of local authorities are sufficient, and particularly when joining with private enterprise on a company basis, or co-operating in partnership, and so on, we shall look to see whether their powers are sufficient to enable them to do that without too much hindrance.
    There is no general power under legislation at present for municipal trading, but there are many specific powers in

    1595
    both public Acts and local Acts. One would have to go very carefully in giving a general power to trade in everything and anything. If we want to expand the powers in this respect, it would be preferable to be very specific about them and to say exactly in what direction we want them to expand.
    The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) went beyond new Clause 7, very rightly, in his criticism of the rating system, in saying that local authorities should be enabled to raise revenue not just through property transactions or municipal trading, as suggested in the new clause, but particularly by relating their collection of revenue to the income of the ratepayer or the income of the contributor to a local authority's fund. That matter was considered in the Green Paper, from the point of view both of a local income tax and a surcharge on earning householders who were not the direct ratepayers. In both cases the administration is extremely difficult. I do not say that it is impossible. We may still be able to work out a system at least to supplement rates, but it would impose considerable administrative difficulties on local authorities.
    10.45 p.m.
    The new authorities will be taking over on 1st April, with new boundaries and new functions and they will be reduced in number from 1,400 to 400. When those new authorities settle down, I am sure that the House will wish to look again at the system of providing them with funds. In trying this year to apply fairly the rate support grant—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced this afternoon the formula for distribution, the amount of the grant and how the relevant expenditure should be calculated—I almost despaired of getting a fair system. The number of times the calculations went in and out of the computer was astonishing. I now have no faith at all in computers. I am certain that if the House would let me have a helicopter in which to fly round and throw out the money to the local authorities—£10 million here and £20 million there—I should do much better than the computer. I should know who deserved the money.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am sure that we all have sympathy with the Minister in his predicament, but does not one get out of the computer only the answer to the intelligent information that is put into it?
    Mr. Page: Yes, I am sure that is so. I think that eventually we got a very intelligent result. I was complaining about the extraordinary formulae that one has to feed into the computer to get the right result. If one needs to make all these calculations in order to get fairness as between one local authority and another and between one ratepayer and another, something in the system itself needs to be remedied. I hope that we shall be able to reconsider this to see how we can improve the law when the new local authorities have settled down.
    The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) mentioned a hotel tax for London. I understand that the Greater London Council proposes to bring forward certain legislation. In March 1971 the GLC issued a discussion paper on the subject. The yield from such a tax would be fairly small and uneven and of virtually no benefit to local authorities away from the main tourist areas. If we intended to make this a general tax, which would be the only way to deal with it in a Bill of this sort, I do not think it would bring benefit throughout the country. If it would benefit Greater London, it might well be appropriate for a Private Bill introduced by the GLC. I cannot give an undertaking that the Government would give it a blessing without first seeing the proposal. If a local authority which is in the same position as London over the tourist trade feels that a tax of this sort might be beneficial and that it would not be administratively too difficult, I hope that it will bring the proposal before the House in a private Bill. The usual Greater London Council Bill comes before the House every year. Our minds are not closed to this, neither in respect of local authorities which face particular difficulties, such as tourist areas, nor from the point of view of a general amendment of the rating system.
    I do not think that the hon. Member for Small Heath would expect me to accept the clause as it stands, but I hope

    1597
    that I have made enough sympathetic noises for him to withdraw the motion and for him not to press it at this stage.
    Mr. Oakes: We are disappointed that the Government have not accepted the principle of new Clause 7. The Minister referred to the Green Paper. In that document many imaginative suggestions were put forward for alternatives to the rating system—a system which, as both sides agree, is archaic and unfair. We have made these criticisms time and again.
    I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in considering alternatives, for they are difficulties that we share. Perhaps I may explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that one of the reasons for our excluding a local form of taxation from the clause was that it was doubtful that such a proposal would have been in order under the Bill. Furthermore, my colleagues and I have searched the various taxation methods—petrol tax, local sales test and all the rest—and have found them to be regressive or difficult in one way or another.
    We have endeavoured in the clause to give power to local authorities to exercise local initiative and local freedom, but subject to the Secretary of State's approval. This would not impose a duty—for we are not seeking to place upon them such a duty—on local authorities, now in the turmoil of reorganisation, to bring forward such a scheme by 1st April 1974. This House is not legislating for 1st April this year or for next year. This Bill will have fundamental

    Division No. 34.]

    AYES

    [10.55 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Gourlay, Harry

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davidson, Arthur

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Austick, David

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Deakins, Eric

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Beith, A. J.

    Dempsey, James

    Hardy, Peter

    Bishop, E. S.

    Dormand, J. D.

    Harper, Joseph

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Booth, Albert

    Dunn, James A.

    Horam, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Dunnett, Jack

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Eadie, Alex

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Ellis, Tom

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Evans, Fred

    Janner, Greville

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Faulds, Andrew

    John, Brynmor

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Clark, David (Coins Valley)

    Forrester, John

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Concannon, J. D.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Kerr, Russell

    Conlan, Bernard

    Golding, John

    Lamborn, Harry

    importance for local goverment finances for a considerable time to come. The clause gives to local authorities some local options on municipal trading and in particular on property development, because such development within a local authority area is by and large a profit to the community—and that should be so in view of what that community has put into the area.
    There are many different forms of scheme, other than taxation, of which a local authority could take advantage, not only in respect of trading, but in acquiring property, using it, letting it for commercial reasons, and indeed in acquiring property for many purposes which the present law does not allow them to do. We are saying that local authorities would have the power to do this in the clause, subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
    The clause now before the House is a most modest one. We must remember that local authorities face severe financial difficulties. Even to carry on their statutory duties they will need alternative sources of finance. The clause gives local initiative a chance to provide those alternative sources of finance. I am sorry that the Government will not accept the principle of this clause, and I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 137.

    Lamond, James

    Oswald, Thomas

    Strang, Gavin

    Loughlin, Charles

    Palmer, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Tope, Graham

    McBride, Neil

    Radice, Giles

    Torney, Tom

    McCartney, Hugh

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Varley, Eric G.

    McGuire, Michael

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Machin, George

    Rose, Paul B.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Rowlands, Ted

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Marquand, David

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Whitlock, William

    Marsden, F.

    Sillars, James

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Silverman, Julius

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Mellish, Fit, Hn. Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Woof, Robert

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Mitchell, Ft. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Oakes, Gordon

    Stallard, A. W.

    Mr. Michael Cocks and

    Oram, Bert

    Steel, David

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Heyhoe, Barney

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Astor, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Percival, Ian

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Awdry, Daniel

    Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Holland, Philip

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Benyon, W.

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bitten, John

    Hornby, Richard

    Redmond, Robert

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Boscawen, Hn. Robert

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bowden, Andrew

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Bray, Ronald

    James, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Sainsbury, Timothy

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Burden, F. A.

    Kirk, Peter

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Shersby, Michael

    Channon, Paul

    Knox, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lamont, Norman

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Clegg, Walter

    Lane, David

    Spence, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Sproat, lain

    Cooke, Robert

    Loveridge, John

    Stainton, Keith

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

    Luce, R. N.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Cormack, Patrick

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Sutcliffe, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    McLaren, Martin

    Tebbit, Norman

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Madel, David

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mather, Carol

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Fidler, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Waddington, David

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Fowler, Norman

    Moate, Roger

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fox, Marcus

    Money, Ernle

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Gower, Raymond

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gray, Hamish

    Monro, Hector

    Worsley, Marcus

    Green, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Younger, Hn. George

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    Mudd, David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Neave, Airey

    Mr. Adam Butler and

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Normanton, Tom

    Mr. Michael Jopling.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 8

    VALUATION NOT TO BE INCREASED BECAUSE OF INSTALLATION OF CENTRAL HEATING
    ' No proposal may be made in the case of hereditament which is a dwellinghouse or mixed hereditament within the meaning of section 48 of the principal Act for an increase in the gross value by reason of the making of structural alterations on or after 1st April 1974 which are necessary only for the purpose of installing a system of providing heating in two or more rooms in the hereditament '.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that we shall be debating another new clause and amendments with this?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. We shall be taking the following:
    New Clause 15—Valuation lists not to be altered on account of structural alterations for purposes of fire protection
    and Amendments No. 71, in Clause 20, page 21, line 30, at end insert:
    ' (aa) If and so far as such alterations are connected with the installation of sprinkler fire protection devices or any equipment or any alterations which are undertaken to reduce the fire risks of a building, or '.
    and No. 72, in page 21, line 30, at end insert:
    ' (aa) If a building is extended to provide for the garaging of a private vehicle, and such a structure is totally enclosed, where such a facility did not previously exist, or '.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We must now turn our attention to the question of the installation of central heating and the effect of that on the rateable value of domestic residences. I have an understanding of the reason the Government put Clause 20 into this Bill.
    The effect of that Clause is that any householder who makes a structural alteration to his house to provide for central heating on or after 1st April this year will not have its rateable value automatically increased on that account, but it will occur at the next general revaluation.
    1602
    The Government have included Clause 20 because there is tremendous dissatisfaction among thousands of householders, who says, "We are going to spend part of our incomes on improving our houses by putting in central heating which is to the benefit of our families and in the interests of the country as a whole in a small but essential manner. What thanks do we get from the community for improving our houses by putting in central heating? The Inland Revenue say, ' Because you have improved your houses in this respect the rateable values will be increased and it will cost you more in local rates or taxes.'"
    There has been considerable concern about this matter. Thankfully, many people are putting central heating into their houses to give themselves additional comfort. I suppose that logically they would argue, "Why should we be taxed when we spend our incomes on sensible things like installing central heating when, if we had frittered our incomes away in some other form, we would not be taxed upon it?" That is a reasonable attitude.
    The Government have accepted that argument—I am with them ; I do not quarrel with them about it—until the next general revaluation. But that is grossly unfair to householders who have central heating in their houses and whose valuations have been increased.
    In Clause 20 the Government are saying, "We do not want to impose an additional rating burden upon those who have installed and paid for central heating at this stage. We will do it later." But, by virtue of that clause, they are creating an extremely privileged position for those who go in for central heating as a new venture on or after 1st April this year. I do not think that in equity that can be defended or justified.
    If it is wrong for householders who newly install central heating to suffer an additional tax burden by increasing their rateable values, it must be wrong for those who have already installed and paid for central heating. We seek to remedy that situation in the new clause.
    I am not sure that we have got it right. The Minister appears to indicate some doubt about it. We thought that we had it right in this intricate matter, but on re-reading and with the benefit of further advice it would appear that we have not succeeded in achieving our aim. Nevertheless,

    1603
    the new clause provides the House with an opportunity to consider the principles involved.
    There are different forms of central heating. It seems extraordinary—this is at the heart of the unfairness of the system—that if someone installs a gas hot-air system which requires a structural alteration in his house—I have such a system in my house—his rateable value is adjusted and increased. However, if he installs a form of central heating which requires only the addition of electric plugs in bedrooms into which a night storage heating system can be plugged, that does not bring him within the ambit of increased rateable value and taxation.
    Not only is it unfair that central heating should be taken into account but it is doubly unfair for the people who are penalised because they have purchased one form of central heating as distinct from another. People should be encouraged to go in for central heating because it is in the country's interest that they should. It could probably be argued that many diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and so on would be reduced if central heating was more widespread. I have heard bronchitis described as a typically British disease, and many medical men think that the introduction of more central heating would be a service to health. Central heating should be totally removed from any calculation of the valuation of a house. It is only there because of the archaic valuation laws. They base the rateable value on the notional or hypothetical rent which a house could fetch if let on the open market and it is argued that if a house has central heating that rent will be higher.
    That adds up to the ludicrous situation we now have and the best answer is to instruct the Inland Revenue totally to disregard central heating in determining the rateable value of domestic properties. We hope that is what our clause will achieve. We shall listen with interest to what the Minister says. However, whether the clause is properly drafted or not, the important thing is that we should carry the Government with us in our broad intentions. If the amendment is not quite right I hope that the Government will take it over and produce a form of wording which achieves what I am sure we all want.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for raising these points in his speech. I have a great deal of sympathy for his clause. The hon. Member has already pointed out some of the anomalies, if not absurdities, of the existing rating system. Many hon. Members will agree with me that the rating system as it affects domestic hereditaments at least is illogical, unfair and out of date.
    I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend's reply in the last debate when he seemed to suggest that he was not in favour of the existing rating system but that no adequate alternative had been found and that in any case this was not the time to put forward a radical alteration to the system when the structure of local government was being changed.
    The clause standing in my name is self-explanatory. It seeks to provide that
    "Where any building or structure is altered, adapted or extended for the purpose of reducing fire risk, the valuation of such a building or structure for rating purposes shall not be altered, in respect of such alterations, adaptations or extensions".
    I need not remind the House of the need to minimise fire risk in all types of buildings. I need hardly remind the House of the tremendous increase in the cost of damage to property and the increased number of fire outbreaks in the past few years. Amendment No. 71 relates new Clause 15 to domestic or mixed hereditaments. I need not explain that further, except to say that whereas hon. Members have spoken about central heating, for example, I have in mind fire sprinkler units and fire doors to minimise fire risks.
    11.15 p.m.
    Amendment No. 72 relates to the garaging of private vehicles. It is for an environmental reason that I ask that garages attached to domestic hereditaments should be excluded from rating valuation. It is a good thing for a person, when possible, to build a totally enclosed garage for the garaging of a private vehicle. We need only to look around council or private housing estates to see how the environment can be adversely affected by the rows of cars which are left on the roads or in the byways.
    If we can improve the environmental scene by encouraging people to build garages where practicable, it is surely wrong to penalise those people by uprating the valuation of their properties. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), mentioned what the Government have done in Clause 20 when speaking in Committee on the motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He said that when minor alterations are effected to domestic or mixed hereditaments there will be no revaluation of the property, at least between valuations. My hon. Friend instanced specifically a garage. If under the proposed Bill somebody extends a house by building a garage on to it, his rating valuation will not increase until the next general valuation.
    That is appreciated, but, with great respect, it is unfair that the property should be valued upwards at any time and in any case I make the plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who I very much welcome in his new capacity, that the Government should keep an open mind on this matter. As the hon. Member for Small Heath said, it is inequitable and it causes a lot of bitterness among millions of domestic ratepayers.
    However precise the Bill may be from a legal or technical viewpoint, surely it is right that we should try to amend legislation in this House so as to make it to be seen to be fair to all the people. I believe these new clauses and amendments would help to do that.
    Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: I am sure that all hon. Members are fully aware of the tragic loss of life which has occurred in hotels from fire outbreaks in recent times. Hon. Members may not be so aware of the relatively high cost which can be incurred by adopting basic fire prevention provisions. Such provisions for an hotel may well consist of a second escape and, if it is a small hotel, such an escape is often taken over the roof, thereby increasing protection by providing an alternative route. Unfortunately the cost of such work tends to increase every year. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to give any discouragement
    1606
    to hoteliers, and particularly small hoteliers, in carrying out this kind of work.
    Many of the hotels affected are in scheduled premises or in conservation areas so that there should not be any question of the premises being rebuilt. In many cases, I know of a number in my constituency, the bulk of the accommodation in these residential hotels is taken up by retired persons, people who by reason of their age are most likely to be at risk in the event of a fire. If by carrying out the necessary fire precautions all that the owner gets is an increase on his rate bill we should be, most unhappily, discouraging owners from carrying out such necessary and desirable works.
    Mr. Robert Adley: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has said. I declare an interest in a large hotel company, not affected in any way by the Fire Precautions Act, and confirm what my hon. Friend has said—and what was said most eloquently by his predecessor the late Mr. Martin Maddan—that the passage of that Act has placed and is placing severe burdens upon hotel owners, particularly owners of small hotels and boarding houses. I hope that the Government will take note of the points made.
    Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) have spoken persuasively on this matter and it is difficult not to have sympathy with the points they have made. It is therefore with some regret that I have to advise the House that I shall be asking my hon. and right hon. Friends to resist the new Clause and the amendments. This is principally because the new clauses do not carry the matter much beyond the stage reached in Clause 20. The hon. Member for Small Heath has referred to Clause 20, the intention of which is to stop the irritation which now exists when someone carries out structural alterations to their property—be it to install central heating or to build a small garage—and then finds the district valuer coming along with a proposal to increase the rateable value.
    Clause 20 is meant to stop that happening between valuations. When the revaluation occurs the district valuer has to carry out his duty and value the property as it is. The criteria is: what is the notional rental value of that property? That criteria is of value in as much as it differentiates between the owner of one property and another, determining the amount of rates one occupier shall pay upon the amenities and facilities he is enjoying. For example, a house with two bedrooms is worth less than a house with three. The person with a larger house has a higher rateable value. By the same criteria the house with central heating is worth more than a house which does not have it.
    In so far as one has to have means of determining how this form of tax shall be related to the value of the property the district valuer has to take into account the various amenities that one house has against another when determining rateable values. It is being suggested by the hon. Member for Small Heath that we should breach that. He says that specifically for central heating.
    The moment that it is done for one thing, where does one draw the line? Is there any reason why one should not say that, having allowed it for central heating, it should not be done for the installation of a bathroom, or for the installation of an inside toilet where previously the toilet was outside, or for building an additonal bedroom or a garage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said? That is the consideration that has to be borne in mind, and for that reason, with the rating system as it is, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept a breach of a principle that can be continued in all directions without limit once that is accepted.
    The new clauses do not do what the hon. Member for Small Heath said they do. First, new Clause 8 says that "No proposal may be made". Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the term "proposal" is a term of art relating to an alteration to a valuation list in between general valuations. All that the hon. Gentleman is saying is what Clause 20 says, namely, that for the future the
    1608
    installation of central heating cannot bring about an alteration in the valuation in between general valuations.
    If, however, one were to take the hon. Gentleman's proposition to its logical conclusion, one would find difficulty in seeing why he should have in the new clause the words "after 1st April 1974", because if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that central heating should be disregarded altogether at a general valuation, why should those who have carried out all these alterations at some time in the past be penalised because of a given date? The hon. Gentleman is repeating the words of Clause 20 and is merely positing what that clause says. The new clause carries the House not one whit further. It is superfluous, and for that reason I must invite the House to reject it.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument closely. Does he, on reflection, think that there may be a difference between my new clause and that tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), in that I am talking about adaptations or devices to reduce fire risks, and that is very different from the amenities of a building?
    Secondly, would my hon. Friend care to deal with my argument, which I put sincerly, about the environmental point of view of a garage? My hon. Friend is not saying, is he, that a house is revalued upwards if it has more trees in the garden than another property nearby? Surely there is an environmental difference that is worthy of consideration.
    Mr. Rossi: I was about to come to new Clause 15 and the amendments. That clause suffers from the same defect as new Clause 8, in that it uses the words "valuation…shall not be altered". That can only mean a proposal, because no alteration is taking place by revaluation. A new exercise is taking place ; in other words, the valuation of the property at that date. When my hon. Friend speaks of alterations, what he is speaking of is the period in between valuations, and Clause 20 already deals with that specific situation.
    Mr. Adley: With regard to new Clause 15, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is not his impression that any work that is required to be done under the Fire Precautions Act and to meet fire risks in

    1609
    accordance with that clause can add to the value of the property if it is an old converted house?
    Mr. Rossi: It could conceivably make it more attractive from a rental point of view, and the moment it does that the question of valuation for rating purposes immediately arises.
    On the question of fire and structural alterations, I think that if my hon. Friends refer to Clause 20 they will see that subsection (1)(b) speaks of structural alterations within a limit to be prescribed by order under that subsection. It is intended that the limit be £30. In other words, structural alterations which do not increase the rateable value of the property by more than £30 will escape under Clause 20 between the valuation periods. This, it is felt, should cover——
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I assure him that it is not possible to provide one fire door for £30. That is totally inadequate. To enclose the staircase of, say, the average four-storey converted residence which is not a residential hotel is likely to cost a minimum of £200–£300.
    Mr. Rossi: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not referring to the cost of works carried out. I was speaking of the effect that that work had on the rateable value. I am talking only of rateable value, of the order of a £30 increase. It could be that several thousand pounds worth of work is carried out before there is an increase of as much as £30 in the rateable value. This provision will cover both fire precautions—sprinklers—and garages. A double garage might take it outside £30—one cannot say—but the Government's intention is very much to cover the points made by my hon. Friends.
    There is one outstanding point. My hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth in his new Clause 15 has gone beyond the intention of the Bill, which was to restrict these benefits to dwelling-houses. My hon. Friend wants to extend them to commercial premises. I doubt very much whether his proposal would be much of an incentive to a commercial firm. It would want to install fire safety to preserve its building and its stock, and a small adjustment in rateable value is
    1610
    hardly of significance in that kind of thing.
    For these reasons, I invite the House to reject the new clauses and the amendments.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on making what I think has been his maiden speech since his elevation to the position of Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Rossi: That is very kind of the hon. Member, but might I say that I was caught on the Consolidated Fund Bill and was here at about 8 a.m. making my first speech in my present office. But there was hardly anyone here to hear me.
    Mr. Howell: I am sorry that I was not able to offer the hon. Gentleman my congratulations on that occasion but I do so now. I am delighted to know that a period of service in the Whips' Office obviously does not dim the eloquence of Members who suffer that fate. We are glad to have had such a clear and helpful exposition from the hon. Gentleman.
    I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that as he went through the reasons one by one why my new clause and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) should be rejected, all he did was to prove to the House the complete absurdity of our present rating system. Therefore, his eloquence in that sense will perhaps take us a step nearer the determination of both sides at some time to deal adequately with the matter and put it right. I accept, however, from the hon. Gentleman that, as long as the existing ridiculous system is with us, basing rateable values on the notional lettable value of houses, these anomalies will continue to plague the country and annoy ratepayers generally.
    The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the effect of our new clause would have been to remove liability for increased rateable value for all who install rateable value on and after 1st April by leaving the anomaly for those who have already installed rateable value. That is exactly the anomaly I was seeking to remove. Having thus been assured by the hon. Gentleman that the clause would not achieve all that I would have wished

    1611
    to achieve, and having, I hope, initiated a very helpful debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.
    Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

TUNSTEAD QUARRY, DERBYSHIRE
11.35 p.m.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: Twenty-five years ago, short of a few days, a previous Member for the High Peak Division, a great conservationist then and a great conservationist today, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, initiated a similar debate. He was criticising, at the earlier hour of 7.18 p.m., the quarrying policy of the Government of the day.
I rise not to do that but to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to a situation that has developed over the years. It is as important in Derbyshire today as it was in 1949.
In no way am I asking that the matter should be removed from local hands. I suggest that the Government should consider it with the advantage of the enormously greater resources of expert advice available to them than was available to the Government 25 years ago, so that should the case come before them they will be more fully equipped to deal with it than was the then Minister for Town and Country Planning.
I am talking about the application by ICI for an extension of Tunstead Quarry, already the largest quarry in Britain, and the largest limestone quarry in Europe. The Company is applying to develop a continuation of Old Moor, which is very close to it, and partly
1612
outside, but mainly inside, the national park.
I am happy that the company has behaved with the responsibility that one would expect of it. In all ways, going right back to 1950, it has made its intentions abundantly clear. It has consulted local authorities and reported to the planning authorities in March 1970. In April 1971 it approached the Northwest Derby and Peak Park Planning Board, and it went before the Rural Planning Authority in October 1971.
It has also drawn up an impressive plan devised for it by an eminent landscape artist. It plans to spend about £70,000 on trees if its application is granted, and proposes to do all this 12 or 13 years before it would even start using the quarry, so that the trees will have grown up and will not be the sort of eyesore to which we have, sadly, become so accustomed in the High Peak over many years.
A responsible employer, it employs in its quarries about 800 people, but that is no measure of the number of people in my constituency who are dependent on the company. Including the wives, children, pensioners and ancillary people, the number runs into thousands. It is, as it has always been, a vastly important industry for the High Peak.
One must also consider the views of the local residents. As I find from my correspondence, they are unanimous in their strong disapproval of this plan, which will bring the quarry to within 1,000 yards of an old Norman village, Wormhill. The residents there are already very used, as are the people of that part of the High Peak, to the suffering caused by blasting and, during the dry summer, by large quantities of dust all over the trees, which look green no more towards the end of the season. The lorries on the narrow lanes are also a great problem. These people do not want this extension and their views have to be considered very carefully.
All of us who live in our part of Derbyshire suffer from the activities of quarry owners of years gone by. No one realises this more and has more responsibility than not only this company but the other companies quarrying in the area today. They realise that the appalling sights one sees around Buxton and Dove Holes are

1613
a dreadful inheritance for all who live there. It is not unfair for these local people to be suspicious of a vast new plan like this, which they feel will further harm their countryside. We are not dealing with something that can be termed just "local".
Because we are in the national park, I feel that this matter will come to the Minister at some stage. Not the park planning board nor the county council nor the new High Peak authority will be able to deal with it. Extraction of minerals in a national park has been recognised as a national problem for well over the 25 years.
The Minister who spoke in the debate in 1949, said,
"The most fundamental difference from our proposeed national parks is that it is essential, and I think very desirable too, that in our national parks the ordinary rural life, such as farming, rural industry and afforestation, should continue to function…Those areas must be used to maintain the economic life of the community. It may be inevitable that different uses of land should exist cheek by jowl."
He said later,
"It may be necessary to utilise the mineral wealth which lies in those areas for the purpose of ensuring the economic life of our people."
What is most important is that he added,
"The first condition is that it must be demonstrated quite clearly that the exploitation of those minerals is absolutely necessary in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1465, 1466, 1484.]
In winding up that debate, Lord Molson mentioned the importance of lime in the High Peak and the 300 industries which depended on lime. He said that the 50 per cent of the people living within 60 miles of Buxton who depended on lime in their day-to-day lives could not at weekends expect to see no signs of where it had come from.
The next important debate on the subject was in 1952, on a Supply Day, when Mr. Harold Macmillan said,
"While the county councils have a general duty to do what they can to keep a general balance between industrial needs and the development of material resources, on the one hand, and amenity interests, on the other, in those areas which are designated as National Parks, amenity and access are to be given an overriding position. That is really the difference. It is just that which distinguishes the National Parks from the general functions of
1614
the county councils over the rest of the country."
Mr. Macmillan also said in the same debate,
"It is, of course, sometimes necessary, even in National Parks, to make some concession. Reservoirs, hydro-electric schemes, the quarrying of minerals—are we to shut out the whole of Derbyshire, for instance?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July 1952 ; Vol. 503, c. 1931–32.]
I suggest that he was clearly pointing out and following un what the Minister said in 1949.
Limestone is enormously important. Its importance to many of our industries cannot be over-estimated. Almost all industries need it. There is a very small amount of limestone in this country and unfortunately it is spread geographically in places of great beauty. There is, first, a relatively large quantity in the Peak District, and there is limestone in the Yorkshire Dales and in Somerset. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) present tonight because he has as much a problem as we have.
My right hon. Friend now has available for him all the committees which have been set up, which were not thought of in 1949. There is the Committee on Mineral Controls, the Stevens Committee, and the Advisory Committee on Aggregates, the Verney Committee. The Royal School of Mines is working with the Institute of Geological Sciences. The Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has already reported and we await the printing of that report on mining in national parks. Dorby has reported in the first place. It is not for me to say which of these committees it is correct to use at present. I suggest that a sub-committee of Verney could report on the national interest regarding the extraction of lime, with particular bearing on Tunstead at present.
We are in a very difficult position. We are having to value something that has never been valued. We are having to value something of national beauty, our heritage, against what lies underground and how we extract it. As Councillor Allman, the leader of the High Peak authority, has said, it comes down to what we will pay for a sack of lime.
These are matters which only my right hon. Friend, with advice from the experts who have been appointed, can answer.

1615
It is vitally important that my right hon. Friend consults these people. When he has consulted them, I am confident that the assertion that was made by my predecessor will not be able to be made again.
11.47 p.m.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) has done a service beyond his constituency. He has done a service to those who have at heart the wellbeing of the environment in general by raising this important matter of the conflict of interest that exists in certain areas of outstanding beauty between the environment, the interests of the companies concerned and the national interest of winning minerals, road stone or building stone from those areas.
I want to raise two important points. First, I support my hon. Friend in his view that as this matter is of national rather than local importance my right hon. Friend the Minister should be made aware at the earliest possible stage of any application to develop a new quarry or to extend an existing quarry, so that he is able to give advice locally as to the national interests rather than only the interests of the local people.
Secondly, when the local authority receives a planning application to extend a quarry or to develop a new quarry in an area of outstanding beauty, often the national interest in the demand for stone or for the particular material that will be quarried over the next so many years is invoked by the applicant company. Along comes an amenity society which, equally, invokes the national interest. The local authority has to decide the issue although it is in the dark as to what is the national interest.
We in Somerset are fortunate in having a local authority that has gone to a lot of trouble and expense in providing the expertise to discover what are the needs for quarrying in the country as a whole for the next quarter of a century, but that is rare.
In coming to a decision on these planning matters local authorities should be able to call upon all the expertise of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry
1616
on the national requirements for stone and quarrying in the future, to help them to decide the conflict between the needs of the quarrying industry and the need to preserve the environment.
11.52 p.m.
The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) broadened the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant)—very rightly, because the specific case put by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak raises a matter of considerable principle, that is to say, the national interest in quarrying in such places as a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The application by Imperial Chemical Industries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak referred, to extract limestone from land near its existing Tunstead Quarry reached the Peak Park Planning Board in November, and the board has it under consideration ICI has agreed to an extension until 15th March of the two-month period for giving a decision, and the planning committee is discussing the matter with the Derbyshire County Council next week, as part of the area in question lies just outside the Peak Park jurisdiction.
As the planning application is at that stage, that is all I can say about the merits of it. If I say more my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State may find himself in the position of being prejudiced by what I have said when he comes to make a final decision if the application comes to him either on appeal by the company should it receive an adverse decision from the board or in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend deciding to call in the application. He can call in the application if it is referred to him by the planning board as constituting a substantial departure from the development plan. I regret that I cannot say anything tonight on the merits of the case because I might prejudice the exercise of the impartial judgment which my right hon. and learned Friend has to apply should the case come before him. Without causing my right hon. and learned Friend any embarrassment, I think I can express the general concern we feel over applications for this type of development in a national park.

1617
In this case the quarry is on the edge of the national park, but local authorities and Ministers alike are required, by Section 11 of the Countryside Act, to have regard to the desirability of preserving the natural beauty of the countryside. Indeed the House may be assured that whether the decision is taken by the planning authority, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, all due weight will be given to amenity factors. If it falls to my right hon. and learned Friend to make the decision, a public inquiry will be held at which all apprehensions can be fully ventilated, but if the application is resolved locally, equally the objections and fears will be taken into account.
It is true that both local planning authorities and Ministers who have to deal with these matters—both the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales—during these applications must demonstrate that the working of these minerals is absolutely necessary within the park. Every other area should be considered and the applicants in this kind of development should be prepared to show that the application is absolutely necessary where they are asking for it to be within a national park area.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would refer the case to one of the committees that are now considering mineral workings and the problems of mineral workings in general. It would not be proper to refer a planning application to a specific committee of this sort or for the Secretary of State to take advice on a specific case without taking it in the course of a public inquiry. But it is necessary that any local planning authority dealing with an application should have as full information as is available on the production of minerals, the supply and demand position and any relevant national policies.
A number of lines of inquiry are afoot in respect of aggregate minerals. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that certain major committees were considering the subject. There is the Advisory Committee on Aggregates, the Verney Committee, which was set up in 1972. That body was to advise on matters relating to the supply of aggregates for the construction industry and it has recently issued an interim report. It may well be
1618
that the contents of that report should be taken into account in considering the present application. Since the main purpose of Tunstead Quarry is the production of high-quality chemical stone, the work of the Verney Committee may not be particularly relevant to the type of development proposed, although a quantity of lower-grade limestone, which would otherwise be waste, is processed as aggregate or used in the manufacture of cement. But local planning authorities concerned with the production of limestone as aggregate will draw benefit in due course from the work of the Verney Committee.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Institute of Geological Sciences which is carrying out in Derbyshire a feasibility study to establish procedures for an assessment of national resources of limestone. I hope that this necessarily longer-term project will lead to surveys which in due course will provide local authorities with better information than that presently available about the extent and nature of limestone resources. All these are building up information for both local authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend.
The Department has also instituted a three-year research project by the Royal School of Mines into the environmental implications of large-scale quarrying and open-cast working, and the initial stages of the work, on the results of which the content of further work will depend, is almost completed.
My hon. Friend referred to the committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Sandford. Its report, just made and in course of being printed, will be of great help in these problems.
Finally there is the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens, which is expected to report later this year on the legal and procedural framework necessary for proper control rather than on issues of location and policy in the consideration of applications.
My hon. Friend asked whether this application could be called in by my right hon. and learned Friend. Certainly I shall invite my right hon. and learned Friend to look at what my hon. Friend said——
Mr. Le Marchant: I did not say that I should like it to be called in. I was asking for my right hon. and learned Friend to acquaint himself with the whole of this very important subject. At the beginning of my speech I said that I believed that it should be considered locally but that it should be known to my right hon. and learned Friend at this stage because it was such a very important matter.
Mr. Page: To the extent that the application has been made, it is known to my right hon. and learned Friend. But it has not been referred to him by the local authority as a departure from the development plan. If it is so reported, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether calling it in is the right procedure. But he could not undertake to investigate this outside the normal planning procedure by referring it to one or other of the committees that I have mentioned, or even by considering it himself before it came before him in a proper fashion in the normal planning procedures. If it comes in that form, almost undoubtedly my right hon. and learned Friend will appoint a public inquiry.
However, it is well within the power of the local planning authority itself to hold a public inquiry, and this might be the kind of case in which a planning inquiry held by the local planning authority before it reaches any decision on the planning application would be a very useful course. At any rate, one way or another this is almost bound to come
1620
before the public, and the case can be argued not only on amenity grounds but also on technical grounds, including the need for this kind of quarrying, and the need for limestone which must be set against the need to preserve amenities.
I stress again that it is a matter of grave concern to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Secretary of State for Wales that we should not encroach into the national parks unless it is really necessary.
We come back to the point which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, namely, what is the national interest in a case of this kind? It is extremely difficult to lay down any rules in advance. One has to look at the merits of each case and to examine each case against the background of knowledge which we have from the various committees which have been set up to investigate this type of development. We shall try as far as we can to balance questions of national interest, and I hope that there will be a full investigation one way or another of this present proposal.
The applicants have gone out of their way to come to arrangements with the local planning authority to make public their intentions so that there is public knowledge of what they intend to do. In the circumstances, I hope that a satisfactory solution will be found.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensioners (Living Standards)
  Pensioners (Living Standards)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Handicapped Children (Rowntree Trust Fund)
  Handicapped Children (Rowntree Trust Fund)
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Battered Babies
  Battered Babies
  Hospital Workers (Pay)
  Hospital Workers (Pay)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Supplementary Benefit and Heating Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit and Heating Allowance
  Invalid Care
  Invalid Care
  Benefit Rights
  Benefit Rights
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Exeter (Expenditure)
  Exeter (Expenditure)
  St. George's Adult Training Centre, Plymouth
  St. George's Adult Training Centre, Plymouth
  Retirement Pensions (Scotland)
  Retirement Pensions (Scotland)
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol Allowance)
  Disabled Drivers (Petrol Allowance)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Area Health Authority Staff
  Area Health Authority Staff
  Joint Committee Staff
  Joint Committee Staff
  Computer Services
  Computer Services
  Benefits (Three-Day Working Week)
  Benefits (Three-Day Working Week)
  Drug Companies (Promotional Expenses)
  Drug Companies (Promotional Expenses)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Heart/Lung Machine Technicians
  Heart/Lung Machine Technicians
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Rehabilitation Resettlement Centre (Hither Green)
  Rehabilitation Resettlement Centre (Hither Green)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Multiple Sclerosis (Research)
  Multiple Sclerosis (Research)
  Schools (Ryton)
  Schools (Ryton)
ENERGY
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Supplies
  Three-Day Working Week
  Three-Day Working Week
  Fuel and Lighting Concessions
  Fuel and Lighting Concessions
  Inswork Point Power Station
  Inswork Point Power Station
  Youth Clubs (Wales)
  Youth Clubs (Wales)
  Parliamentary Elections (Emergency Restrictions)
  Parliamentary Elections (Emergency Restrictions)
  Concessionary Coal (Miners)
  Concessionary Coal (Miners)
  Power Station Coal Stocks
  Power Station Coal Stocks
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Basic Foodstuffs
  Basic Foodstuffs
  Veterinary Service
  Veterinary Service
  Rice
  Rice
  MAGISTRATES (APPOINTMENT)
  MAGISTRATES (APPOINTMENT)
DEFENCE
  Darcy Construction
  Darcy Construction
  Rainham Marshes
  Rainham Marshes
EMPLOYMENT
  Cost-of-Living Indices
  Cost-of-Living Indices
  Computerised Vacancy Matching System
  Computerised Vacancy Matching System
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Three-Day Working Week
  Three-Day Working Week
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Fife
  Fife
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Pay Relativities
  Pay Relativities
ENVIRONMENT
  Driving Test Centre (Lewisham)
  Driving Test Centre (Lewisham)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Rents (Council Housing)
  Rents (Council Housing)
  Amble Urban District (Rents)
  Amble Urban District (Rents)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Motorways (Crash Barriers)
  Lorry Permits (Cross-Channel Freight)
  Lorry Permits (Cross-Channel Freight)
  Keswick Bypass
  Keswick Bypass
  Motor Cycles (Fuel Tanks)
  Motor Cycles (Fuel Tanks)
  Water Resources
  Water Resources
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Immigration Applications (Pakistan)
  Immigration Applications (Pakistan)
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Taxi Fares (Newspaper Report)
  Taxi Fares (Newspaper Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  Charities (Taxation)
  Charities (Taxation)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Robert McKinnie and Robert Johnston
  Robert McKinnie and Robert Johnston
  Herr Thomas Niedermayer
  Herr Thomas Niedermayer
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Tobacco Advertisements
  Tobacco Advertisements
  Independent Broadcasting Authority (Chairman)
  Independent Broadcasting Authority (Chairman)
SCOTLAND
  Solicitors (Complaints)
  Solicitors (Complaints)
  Maternity Mortalities
  Maternity Mortalities
  Councillors (Payments)
  Councillors (Payments)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Motor Cycles (Fuel Tanks)
  Motor Cycles (Fuel Tanks)
  Plasterboard
  Plasterboard
  Regional Development Councils (Grants)
  Regional Development Councils (Grants)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

FOOD PRICES AND THE "GROCER" MAGAZINE
2.30 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the general interest in food prices, they can arrange for a weekly copy of the Grocer magazine to be placed in the Library of the House.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the provision of magazines in the Library of your Lordships' House is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to write to the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee about his suggestion.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply and to ask him whether he is aware that many millions of housewives believe that food and grocery prices are rising very rapidly indeed? Now that the Price Commission do not announce price increases they have no way of correcting this impression.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would only say that the price index which is compiled for the Grocer magazine is more an indication of rises in wholesale prices, because this is of course a trade magazine. The official figures which Governments have always accepted are those compiled for the food index by the Department of Employment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that when the wholesale prices go up retail prices also go up, and would not the availability of the Grocer magazine be very helpful to noble Lords—particularly as the last issue showed that last week there were 518 price increases in grocery shops and that during the whole of last year there were over 12,000 price increases?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that because wholesale prices go up retail prices necessarily go up by the same amount. The December index figures show that raw material costs for food manufacturers went up by 42 per cent. between November, 1972, and December, 1973, but that over the same period, wholesale manufactured food prices rose by only 20 per cent.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, would my noble friend at the same time arrange for a publication giving comparable food prices on the Continent to be placed in the Library?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I do not really want to make any arrangements with the Library Sub-Committee—I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend know that, in my old age, I have to do the household shopping and that I found a retail price this morning that had actually gone down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord therefore help his noble friend by saying which it was?
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if one has the energy and enthusiasm to shop around one can find a considerable number of fair prices?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is correct and I am sure that she has the energy.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, since Private Eye often finds its way into the Library, could not the Grocer be there as well?

FOREIGN OFFICE BUILDING: MODERNISATION STUDIES
2.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their present intentions in regard to the modernisation of the old Public Offices, commonly known as the Foreign Office.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government has promised to preserve the external façades, together with the fine rooms in the North-West corner of the building. Studies are continuing on what form our proposals might take for other parts of the building's interior.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I ask whether the Government will take the opportunity of assuring Parliament, and the public, that this most magnificent of all 19th century public offices, perhaps in Europe, will be handled in a way appropriate to its nature and architecture—that is to say, that the studies will be into how best it can be preserved as it now is and, later, into its best use in the modern age, and not merely into the question of how 3,000 civil servants can be crammed into it?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON:My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, must have been reading my brief because he could not have better stated the Government's intentions.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the Government preserve the two great internal courtyards, the main courtyard and the Durbar Court?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is a technical matter and we have not yet reached that stage. In fact, the architects have not so far been appointed. The intention is to look very closely at this and we have every intention of trying to preserve everything we can which is good and valuable. But I cannot give any guarantee of the sort asked for.

OIL PRICES: EFFECT ON MAPLIN AND CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECTS
2.40 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assumptions have been made about the price of oil in costing the third London Airport and the Channel Tunnel.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, the basic studies for the Channel Tunnel and Maplin assumed that the price of oil would rise broadly in line with other prices. On the Tunnel there will be an opportunity to take account of developments since the basic studies before the stage of final commitment is reached. The effect of recent developments will be among the factors considered in the report to Parliament required by Section 2 of the Maplin Development Act.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, could the Minister say whether it still looks as though it makes anything like economic sense now that oil, to put it mildly, has not risen in accordance with other prices?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I can only ask the noble Lord to await the result of that report on Maplin and of the further studies on the Tunnel.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not only oil that is probably going to increase in price in connection with the construction of the Channel Tunnel? Is the noble Baroness aware that we in Kent are very worried about the cost of a great many other things? I should also like to ask the noble Baroness, if she is going into matters connected with the extra expense of the Channel Tunnel, whether she is aware that it will probably cost very much in excess of the present estimate. Is the noble Baroness further aware that we in Kent would like to know what the cost of the alteration of all the bridges, the railways, the roads and everything else will be?—because we realise that there is going to be a considerable amount of destruction in our

1281
county, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the financing of the Channel Tunnel is the responsibility of the companies, and the Government are providing only the guarantees up to 90 per cent. of the total capital cost. Construction of the associated rail link to London, which will entail public expenditure, will not begin until 1976. There will, however, be an opportunity for this House to consider the whole matter when we come to consider the main Bill on the Channel Tunnel.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may I ask that we shall be told something about it? At present the secrecy is so appalling that those most affected know nothing about it.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot accept that statement by my noble friend. As I have said, he will have an opportunity to raise all these points on the Second Reading of the Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness consider that, in the light of the serious financial and economic situation of this country, that these two objects ought now to be scrapped?
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, in considering whether the Channel Tunnel should be for accompanied motor cars or rail-only link, does the noble Baroness agree that the only figures that we have to go on are those compiled some time ago, well before the emergency, by the Road Research Laboratory, and that no independent studies have been made by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders or British Leyland or any of the other car manufacturers into the future ownership and usage of motor cars? Would she therefore initiate studies into this matter as a question of urgency so that not only decisions on the Channel Tunnel, but on motorways and other ex-
1282
penditure associated with motor cars, can be reviewed?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is a matter that I shall note. There will be opportunities to take into account other developments that may arise before the signing of the supplementary agreement No. 3 which is planned for mid-1975.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether there will be any difference on the price of oil reaching this country if the Suez Canal is opened?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is rather wide of the original Question.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the Government are going to abandon their intellectual dandyism and concentrate on getting more miners in the pits and encouraging the output of coal rather than boring a hole between here and France for another half century?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government give further consideration to the effect of the price of oil on these projects? Will they also give consideration to the enormous increase of trade which is taking place between the United Kingdom and Europe—I believe it went up 37 per cent. last year—and the inevitable effect this will have on traffic and communications with the Continent? I presume that the Government will agree that we should not be left behind in the requirements of meeting these communication needs.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we shall certainly take note of this point.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that last week the Channel crossing from Dieppe to Newhaven took 7½ hours, instead of the usual 3½ hours, and that the badly buffeted passengers on board were very relieved to reach dry land? Could not this awful experience be avoided once the Channel Tunnel is completed?

AIRCRAFT FUEL PRICES AND CONCORDE AIRCRAFT
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the estimated price of aircraft fuel when increases already announced by the Arab States have taken effect; what would then be the cost of fuel for one crossing by a Concorde aircraft from Heathrow to Kennedy Airport; and how this would compare with the cost of a crossing by a Boeing 747B.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in present circumstances the precise effects that increases in crude oil prices will have on aviation fuel prices cannot be determined. For the purposes of comparison, however, the cost of fuel for a crossing from Heathrow to Kennedy Airport by a Concorde aircraft would be around 90 per cent. of that for a crossing by a Boeing 747B.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the fact that there were no orders, except from Britain and France, for the Concorde aircraft before the rise in fuel prices, will the Government now consider ceasing to throw good money after bad?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the only situation that has changed has been in the price of fuel, and it is far too early to take any kind of decision on this matter. The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping has already said that he will be reviewing the position again jointly with his French colleague in the light of studies presented by the manufacturers. This review will take account also of the fuel situation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if we are going to make comparisons between one aircraft and another, ought we not to make comparisons of like with like? Is it not the fact that Concorde is the only aircraft in the world that has been designed to carry essential travellers; and ought we not now, with the shortage of fuel supplies, so to allocate our fuel supplies that we use it for essential purposes?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord; he has put an opinion with which I thoroughly agree.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the money spent on Concorde is bad?—because I do not.

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
2.49 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the Prime Minister's discussions with the T.U.C.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making a Statement in another place on the Rate Support Grant Scheme. It has been agreed through the usual channels that this Statement need not be repeated here, but with the leave of the House I will arrange for the Statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, make a Statement about the rate support grants to local authorities in England and Wales for 1974–75. Details are set out in the White Paper, Cmnd 5532, copies of which are available at the Vote Office.
"I discussed the settlement with local authorities last week. It assumes that they will make the reductions in expenditure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May and in December. Details will be given in a circular. I should emphasise that local authority relevant expenditure in 1974–75 will still grow in real terms by 2½ per cent.
"The present formula for distributing the needs element no longer reflects the true variations in local authorities' spending needs particularly bearing in mind reorganisation.
"The effect of our new proposals is broadly to give a greater share of the total of the needs and resources elements of grant to the declining city centres.
"I also consider there is a real need to correct the balance between the burdens on the domestic and non-domestic ratepayer which was distorted by the last revaluation. So I propose to increase the total amount to be devoted to domestic relief to £446 million in all—more than double last year's amount. Much of this will go to help those domestic ratepayers who would otherwise suffer as a result of changes in the grant system, reorganisation and the effect of the new water and sewerage charges. In the light of further consultations and subseqeuent changes in the settlement I have decided on a fixed minimum domestic element of 7p rather than the 10p I previously

1285
announced but the majority of ratepayers will be getting more than 7p and many will be getting more than 10p. Indeed the 7p will only apply in areas gaining under the new grant distribution.
"I have decided to propose, subject to the approval of the House, a grant percentage of 60·5 per cent. This compares with 60 per cent. in 1973–74. It would mean a total grant of £3,431 million.
"As a result of this redistribution of the domestic element and of the high rate of grant I believe that the percentage rise in domestic rate burdens can be kept to a maximum of about 9 per cent. subject to any exceptional local circumstances. In a number of cases, particularly in the cities, there should actually be a decrease in the domestic rate burden. The average national increase should accordingly be about 3 per cent. But this is on the understanding that local authorities play their part in keeping down expenditure.
"Even with these provisions rates can bear hardly on some domestic ratepayers. I have done two further things. I have altered the statutory deductions to lessen the burden on domestic ratepayers in dwellings with a lower rateable value. And in addition over 2 million domestic ratepayers should be helped for the first time through the new rate rebate scheme at a cost approaching some £100 million, the cost of which will be borne as to 90 per cent. by the Exchequer."

BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS BILL [H.L.]
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to establish a body corporate having functions relating to the establishment of standards for, the provision of standard preparations of, and the testing of biological substances; to provide for the transfer of certain property, rights, liabilities and obligations from the Medical Research Council to the Secretary of State for Social Services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Wells-Pestell be appointed to the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Stow Hill.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Dustbins, etc.]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 16, line 35, at end insert ("and number").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is to make clear that the collection authority, in serving notice under Clause 11(3) on the occupier of commercial or industrial premises requiring him to provide receptacles for the storage of waste may specify the number as well as the kind of receptacles to be provided. Such notices are to avoid the creation of a nuisance or serious detriment through inappropriate storage of commercial or industrial wastes pending collection, and to avoid nuisance or detriment that might

1287
arise from insufficient containers as well as from the use of unsuitable ones. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 16, line 46, insert the following new paragraph—
("(d) the substances that shall be put into separate receptacles provided, pursuant to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above, after having been extracted by the person disposing from the general body of the waste.")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment about dustbins. I should like to read to your Lordships a letter from the correspondence column of this morning's Sun. it is very short, and it says:
"Paper, bottles and tins were all salvaged during the war. Why aren't they now? It makes me mad to see all these, and even expensive glass food-containers being thrown away. And it costs local authorities a lot to dispose of them."
Dustbins are found in every house and are very important to the economy. The clause as it stands meets nearly every provision to give the housewife and industry the dustbins they need. But I feel that the collection authority should have the power, either nationally or in certain areas, to require that certain items be separated before they are put into the receptacles.
I know the difficulties of gathering any particular item that is disposed of, in that one cannot collect (shall we say?) waste paper all over the country: one can collect it only where the articles thrown out are needed. But, as I envisage it, the day has come, or is coming, when many raw materials are going to be so expensive that it will be necessary for them to be collected them from the dustbins. My Amendment would assist in that. The local industry can go to the collection authority and say, "We want to collect some particular item from this area convenient to us. Will you please arrange for it, and charge us for the bags or the boxes to put it in?" It might be that local industry could very well say, "You put the boxes there but we will collect them ourselves". Or they might say, "Will you collect them and store them for us?" Although if the local authority are going to collect and store for an industry, they would want a long-term
1288
contract stating the costs of new raw materials that are put forth.
My clause would apply not only to householders but to waste from all sources, commercial and industrial as well. I can give very briefly indeed the sort of items that I think could be collected. The first is waste paper. We heard a lot about that from Lord Leatherland the last time we had this discussion: about 2½ million tons are wasted in this country to-day. Secondly, regarding glass—I know that the glass bottle manufacturers have a target to collect broken glass and use it again, and I know that they have now arranged to obtain glass from their own sources. The demand is going to increase, however, and there ought to be arrangements for collecting broken glass. Next, woollens and cloths, rubber and plastics and aluminium foil containers, which are very expensive and are nearly pure aluminium. Then 10 million gallons, at least, of engine oil are thrown down the sinks very day. A million tons of ferrous scrap are also lost. I know the difficulties with tin cans, but that is being tackled. Here one should mention Warren Springs Laboratories, which are working on this, and so many other projects. In addition one has to consider edible wastes in certain areas.
That is all I have to say. I think there is a good case for requiring the house holder to do these things, and I know from the letter that I read at the beginning of my short speech that the householders will co-operate in this task. If the noble Baroness assures us that the clause as drafted meets what I want, that the householder and industry can be instructed, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
2.59 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure that we have all listened with very great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said on this matter of salvage and the sorting out of different types of waste material. I think that it might be helpful to the Committee if I explain what in fact Clause 11(4) does provide. It provides a power to make regulations concerning receptacles for controlled waste of various sorts; their size; the different substances which may or may not be put into them, and the steps to be

1289
taken by householders to facilitate collection, such as the kind of thing that would ensure access to the dustbin if the householder is out. Paragraph (e) enables regulations to be made requiring collection authorities to give directions on any of these matters.
We have on a previous Amendment discussed the question of the separation of waste paper where of course it is open to any collection authority, if they so wish, to collect paper separately and make such arrangements. I believe it would be possible for collection authorities if they wished to go further, to make arrangements for a separate collection of something else. I think the difficulty about this Amendment would be that it would make it obligatory to sort out waste, or would suggest that the Secretary of State should by regulation have a power to oblige collection authorities to collect all these items separately.
The noble Lord quoted a letter from the Sun and I understood him to say that he, on the basis of this, felt that the householder would be willing to cooperate in this matter of separating out different household wastes. The difficulty is that, whereas people were glad to co-operate during the war, and indeed nearly everybody separated household wastes, any salvage drive to-day must rely to a great extent on the co-operation of the public. It is difficult to know quite what enforcement action could be brought against householders who failed to co-operate, and who might have failed to co-operate for good reasons in that perhaps they had not the proper space to be able to store all these different kinds of thing, or for some such reason. Secondly, there is a practical reason requiring the full co-operation of collecting authorities, because of course they would be required to have specially designed vehicles in which the different types of thing could be sorted, so that they could be collected easily.
So far as industrial wastes are concerned, the evidence is that most of the wastes are in fact re-cycled wherever this is possible, so the same argument would not apply. Although this is the kind of Amendment with which one has an instinctive sympathy, against a background of wanting to use all our resources, the reason why we believe it would be difficult to write such a provi-
1290
sion into the Bill is that it would, or could, require a measure of compulsion which we feel could not be justified, and this must rest on the basis of co-operation with the collection authorities and the public. It is for this reason that I feel I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend Lord Craigton replies, may I, surrounded as I am at this moment by Scotsmen, ask whether my noble friend Lady Young can make any suggestion as to what one does with empty whisky bottles, of which, as your Lordships may realise, I have a great number? I cannot get rid of them except to the dustman. I have tried to get rid of them to the wine merchant from whom I buy, and so on. Recently one of the big whisky manufacturers ran out of bottles. So can my noble friend, or any Scotsman, tell me what one ought to do with these bottles? It is a terrible waste to give them to the dustman.
BARONESS WHITE: I am delighted to know that the noble Lord is able to consume so much whisky that he has so many bottles he does not know what to do with them. I thought I should perhaps mention, in speaking to this proposed subsection, that I myself as a private citizen have now taken action with the City of Westminster, who inform me that arrangements could be made to collect all my waste paper if I do certain things. I am now going lo try to persuade the other tenants in the block of flats in which I live to agree. I would suggest that noble Lords should take comparable action with their own local authorities or with commercial interests, to indicate that when we speak in this House we mean what we say and try to do something about it.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness that there is an obligatory element in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, which I suppose could lead to some difficulties. Maybe this is something we should look at again more carefully. We are all groping towards methods by which we can ensure what all of us are aiming at, which is an intelligent use of our resources. Recent events, as we all know, have brought this matter home to the general public far more clearly and sharply than has been the case ever since the period shortly after the last war. It would be

1291
a great pity if we in this House did not do our best to make effective the public sentiment which has been recently aroused, but just allowed everything to slip back to where it was before. So even if the Amendment proposed by Lord Craigton cannot be accepted, I am sure we are all in great sympathy with its objects and should like to see whether the Department, or ourselves, could not by some ingenuity find some other method of securing the same end.
LORD CRAIGTON: I wish that in withdrawing this Amendment I could do so with such skill as the noble Baroness has just used for me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Disposal of waste in England and Wales]:
3.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): This is a fairly simple Amendment intended to clarify the fact that this is a more specific reference to Clause 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("section 10").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 17, line 17,, leave out ("waste paper") and insert ("such waste").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, wishes to discuss his two relevant Amendments with mine. The point is a short one. I have made out some kind of a case for collecting many things other than glass. All I felt was that in dealing with this provision we should allow the collection authority at least to collect something else than glass because it must be more expensive to have two handlings. So I wanted, without altering the pesent position, to make this change. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to give support to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton; it covers substantially the point I sought to cover by Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. As the position stands, as I think the noble Lord stated, a collection authority is going to be very limited at the present time in its ability to salvage materials. None of us at this stage knows what we shall need to reclaim in the future. It would seem to me to be rather unwise to leave this matter to disposal authorities. In places we could well have a collection authority with a sense of initiative that wished to reclaim items which this Bill, as at present worded, would prevent it from doing. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel she can at least accept the principle behind these Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and myself.
BARONESS YOUNG: The principle behind this clause has been the division of responsibility between collection authorities and disposal authorities which is based on a similar division under the London Government Act 1963. With the exception of waste paper, collection authorities are to hand over all wastes to disposal authorities. That is the basic principle behind this provision. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton would have the effect of leaving a collection authority complete discretion as to what it should hand over. I think the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, have the same effect of giving collection authorities discretion. This point follows very much on the discussion we had on the last Amendment. I understand the principle behind these Amendments, which is that collection authorities would have a power, if they so wished, to colloct other substances separately. This is a matter I should like to consider, to see whether there is any way in which we could meet this point. I should be glad to consider all three Amendments.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: To speak for myself, I am grateful for the tenor of the noble Baroness's remarks. It is important to allow collection authorities some latitude so that they can, if they wish, show initiative. They may be willing to undertake what a disposal

1293
authority may not be willing to undertake at some given time. This in the long run, could be a very considerable improvement to the Bill. So far as my Amendments are concerned, in the circumstances, I shall not move them.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LEATHERLAND LORD LEATHERLAND had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89A:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert—
("() Every collection authority (unless excused by the Department of the Environment) and every disposal authority shall keep waste paper separately from other refuse and shall dispose of the waste paper by sale."
The noble Lord said: Last Thursday night it was decided that we should take Amendments 89A and 89B in conjunction with Amendment No. 81. We had a debate on the subject of reclaiming waste paper and I addressed your Lordships at some length with such little eloquence and persuasiveness as I can command, and we felt that the debate had then been closed. Perhaps my two Amendments are still on the Marshalled List because, at the end of last Thursday's debate we merely withdrew Amendment No. 81 and announced that we would be coming back to this question of waste paper in my two Amendments at a later stage of the Bill. It would be improper, therefore of me to address your Lordships at any length once again. I think that probably the best course is for us to come back to the Amendments on Report.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 40, after ("or") insert ("otherwise ")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 90; and it may be to the convenience of your Lordships if I refer also to Amendment No. 96. Amendment No. 90 is purely a drafting Amendment in order to make clear that processing is considered to be a form of disposal of waste.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 91.
Page 17, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) Noting in section 23 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 or in any other enactment shall be deemed to prohibit a disposal authority from generating electricity from the combustion of waste or from supplying the said electricity to an Electricity Board on such terms as may be agreed between any such Board and the disposal authority.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, and at the same time may I speak to Amendment No. 130? I should like to think that the Committee would see these Amendments as being very valuable ones having a considerable topical interest in view of our difficulties at the moment with regard to fuel supplies.
Section 23 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, as amended by the Fourth Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1947, which this Amendment seeks further to modify, states as follows:
"It shall not be lawful for any local authority, company or person, other than an Electricity Board, to commence to supply or distribute electricity: Provided that this section shall not prevent any company or person from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person where the business of the company or person affording the supply is not primarily that of the supply of electrical energy to consumers:"
The Greater London Council has in operation, and has had for some time, a very large refuse incineration plant at Edmonton and its construction provided it with a capacity to produce a substantial amount of electricity from the heat from the incineration process, and the plant is presently producing electricity and feeding it to the national grid. If, however, the heat from the plant had not been used for the generation of electricity, that heat would simply have been wasted. I hope, therefore, that my Amendment may be regarded by the Government as a very welcome and sensible one.
By reason of the provisions of the London Government Act, 1963, the Greater London Council is not a local authority within the meaning of the Act of 1909 although it is a local authority for the purposes of the Electricity Act, 1947. So the position is that although the Council can claim for its refuse incinerator at Edmonton, and any future similar installation, that it is free from the prohibition contained in Section 23 of the Act of 1909, I am advised—and this view is supported by the opinion of

1295
leading counsel—that the position is otherwise in the case of local authorities generally. Because of that, I think that it is desirable that the effect of Section 23 should be appropriately modified to allow waste disposal authorities under the Bill to provide for the possible generating potential of waste disposal. If that were to be done, disposal authorities generally would be free from the prohibition contained in Section 23.
I appreciate that the wholesale repeal of Section 23 would possibly meet with the objection that the statutory monopoly of the Electricity Boards would be undermined thereby. But the proposed Amendment does not seek to do that; it seeks merely to remove for waste disposal authorities a prohibition on the potential use of a valuable by-product of the waste disposal process. I put this Amendment forward as an improvement to the Bill. I would think that at the moment it might be regarded as a matter of burning interest, and I hope that in what I have been able to say I have been able to throw a little light on the intention of the Amendments. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think the aim of the Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has outlined it, would seem to your Lordships to be a very sensible one indeed. It is very difficult, in fact impossible, at this stage to envisage the volume or nature of refuse which will be available in the dumps of the disposal authorities, but in some cases it may be economic to use the combustion for the generation of electricity. In the cases where that is so, clearly one would hope that everything would be done to encourage them so to do and to sell back the power generated to the Electricity Board. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that she agrees that the aim of this Amendment is a good one and will, in principle, give it her support.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I also sincerely hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. It may be that they will argue that the disposal authorities already have the power to sell their steam from their refuse destructors—I do not know. This Amendment would make it obligatory on them to do so.
1296
I know quite a lot about refuse destructors. When I came out of the Army in 1919 I was appointed as Chief Cost Accountant of the Birmingham Corporation Refuse Disposal and Salvage Department. It is a pity I did not stay there instead of degenerating into journalism. A refuse destructor with its battery of boilers can produce an enormous quantity of steam, and at our main destructor in Birmingham we used to produce steam to drive all the machinery on the depot—the paper baling plant, the tin baling plant, and so on—and then piped that steam under the road to the Corporation's electricity generating station on the other side of the road. We received a substantial sum every year for the steam that we supplied. I know that electricity generation is now under a completely new authority, but it would be a pity if refuse disposal authorities were not enterprising enough to seize the opportunity to sell their steam to electricity stations where they are conveniently situated. I very warmly support this Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope I have said enough in the course of the Committee proceedings to make it clear that the Government are fully in sympathy with these Amendments which are concerned with various aspects of re-cycling. As I made clear at an earlier stage, we intend to bring forward an Amendment of our own on this matter. On this particular Amendment, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Amory and of the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Leatherland, about the plant at Edmonton which my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and I visited. We were very impressed with what we saw. This is a most topical matter which we will consider. We intend to consider this Amendment further in consultation with the Department of Energy and representatives of the supply industry. There are legislative and technical problems involved and these will need full consideration. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and grateful, too, for support from the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland.

1297
As I understand the position, if the Government are able to produce an Amendment that covers this position they will be doing so at the next stage of the Bill. In that event I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness if she would be kind enough to let me know as early as she can, otherwise I may want to come back to this at a later stage. On this understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disposal of waste in Scotland]:
3.23 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 95. This is a Scottish consequential Amendment which should be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, after ("of") insert ("section 10 of").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD HOY: I wonder why the different procedure is adopted in the English and the Scottish clauses. There was a reference to "of this Act", and then "of this part of the Act", and now in the Scottish one it is, "Section 10". Section 10 appears to me to be equally applicable to England and Scotland. Why is different wording being adopted in Clauses 12 and 13? Is it just because there are different draftsmen and they do not speak to each other?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I must admit that I am not familiar with the individual draftsmen. The noble Lord is aware that Amendment No. 85 put in the words "Section 10" instead of "of this part". There was a specific reason for that and I think the same reason applies to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 96. We have already discussed this with Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 26, after ("or") insert ("otherwise").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Directions to licence holders to accept waste]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 97, which we discussed some days ago with Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, after ("3(1)") insert ("or 4(7A)").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to
Clause 15 [Removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("a disposal authority or").
The noble Lord said: The clause as drafted gives power to both waste disposal and waste collection authorities to remove waste from land where it has been wrongfully deposited. I am advised, however, that this provision appears to conflict with Section 23 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 which places the responsibility on the authorities which will be the collection authorities under the clause—that is to say, the district councils—to remove dumped waste from places in the open air. Since it does not appear to be the intention of the Bill as drafted to repeal Section 23 of the Act of 1967, it would be consistent and would avoid possible disputes arising between collection and disposal authorities if this clause was amended so as to relate to collection authorities only. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would be to restrict to collection authorities the right to take remedial action if waste was deposited in breach of licensing conditions. Clause 15 has been so drafted that either the collection authority or the disposal authority can take remedial action if a licence has been breached. It is because of possible danger to public health that it has been so drafted. It is felt, in those circumstances, that either authority ought to have this power.

1299
On the specific question which the noble Lord raised about the Civic Amenities Act, this is a point which we shall look at in connection with the group of Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Amory, which it will be recalled had the effect of repealing and consolidating previous legislation.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, particularly for her latter remarks. I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 21, line 39, after ("nor") insert ("caused nor knowingly").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 99, and it may be convenient to discuss with this Amendments Nos. 104 and 105; and indeed Amendment No. 106 by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is made unnecessary if we accept No. 105. This is essentially a straight forward legal point which, seeing that he is present, I hope will commend itself to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The essential point is to show that ignorance is not an excuse and the effect of the three Amendments is to substitute a rather stiffer test; namely, that the occupier neither deposited the waste nor caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited. These three Amendments bring the clause into line with Clause 3(1), which creates the basic offence of depositing waste or causing or knowingly permitting waste to be deposited on unlicensed sites. I beg to move.
LORD HENLEY: I am quite happy about that. It seems to cover the points that I have tried to make in my Amendment No. 106 and if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 99 and Amendments 104 and 105 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I shall not need to move Amendment No. 106.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 100:
1300
Page 21, line 44, at end insert ("provided that the court may in the alternative amend the notice by deleting any particular requirement it considers unsatisfactory").
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make a slight change in subsection (2) of Clause 15 with a view to make it a little more effective. As the Committee will see, the subsection provides that a person who, under Clause 15, is served with a notice by the disposal authority or the collection authority, has a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That court is then called upon to quash the notice provided it is satisfied, as to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) and otherwise has to dismiss the appeal.
For the purposes of this Amendment the relative paragraph is (b), which reads:
"any requirement of the notice is unreasonable".
In other words, if the court comes to the conclusion that if any requirement which may be contained in a number of requirements—the notice may set out many requirements—is unreasonable then the court has to allow the appeal. What is envisaged is that there may be a notice which is sensible and desirable in every conceivable respect, which ought to be upheld, subject to this: that among a number of requirements it contains one requirement which could be said to be an unreasonable requirement. As subsection (2) now stands, the court would be under a duty to allow the appeal because there was, among many requirements, one requirement which it thought to be unreasonable.
It would be sensible at this stage to submit to your Lordships' Committee that in a case of that sort the Court should be given a third alternative. In that situation it should not be under a duty to allow the appeal. Clearly, it could not dismiss the appeal. It should be given a third alternative, which should be as set out in the Amendment which I commend to the Committee. It should be entitled to make a change in that requirement which it thought was an unreasonable requirement; it could amend it, and no doubt if it thought fit so to do it would amend it by striking out any provision (if it were feasible so to do) in that requirement which would seem to make it an unreasonable requirement. The

1301
Court could strike out the characteristic that was unreasonable or it could change it or make such amendment as in the circumstances seemed reasonable. Having done so, it could then dismiss the appeal. The result would then be that the recipient of the notice would have a notice containing requirements, all of which were reasonable, and he could not reasonably complain if in those circumstances his appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction were disallowed.
I submit that this is an Amendment which would improve the working of subsection (2); it would produce the result that appeals would be dismissed where, as a matter of common sense, they ought to have been dismissed but which, as the subsection reads at the moment, would have to be allowed because each single requirement contained some feature which could not reasonably be justified. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: In order that the House may hear the Statement about the Prime Minister's meeting of yesterday with the T.U.C. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ENERGY SUPPLIES AND THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.35 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. These are his own words:
"Six representatives of the T.U.C. came to Downing Street at 4.30 p.m. yesterday afternoon to meet me and my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Employment and Energy. We discussed the possibility of relaxing the restrictions on the use of electricity in industry, the general economic situation and its prospects, and against that background the miners' dispute and the T.U.C. initiative.
"On the use of electricity in industry, my right honourable and noble friend the Secretary of State for Energy
1302
explained that, for various reasons, which I described in my answers to questions in the House last Friday, stocks of coal at the power stations were higher than had earlier been expected. If there were no significant setbacks, and there was no further reduction of supplies of coal to the power stations, it should be possible to contemplate an early relaxation in the restrictions on the use of electricity. It would be important to give the fullest benefit of any relaxations to manufacturing industry; and this would depend on savings by domestic consumers continuing at a high level.
"We asked the T.U.C. representatives whether, if some such relaxation were possible, they would prefer to see industry move to a four day working week or—if this was practicable—to a five day working week with industry using only 80 per cent. of normal supplies of electricity. The T.U.C. made clear that they would prefer a five-day week and 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity.
"This had also been the preference expressed by the C.B.I. at a meeting with my right honourable and noble friend in the morning.
"My right honourable and noble friend is now considering as a matter of urgency whether the technical problems of a five-day week at 80 per cent. of normal use of electricity can be overcome, so that he may be in a position to take a decision later this week, if the coal stock situation and supply prospects justify some relaxation.
"Clearly, one of the factors in his decision must be the industrial action of the mineworkers and its effects upon coal supplies.
"We then moved on to a discussion of the general economic situation, on which I expect to have further meetings both with the T.U.C. and with the C.B.I. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the severe problems which exist in the field of domestic economic policy. The shortfall in energy supplies was bound significantly to affect gross domestic product in the first part of 1974. The substantial additional burden imposed on the balance of payments by the increase in oil prices made it the more necessary to take every advantage of

1303
our competitive situation to increase exports. There would be a sizeable demand for new investment, particularly in the development of new sources of energy. It was therefore impossible to envisage any increase in the volume of resources going into domestic consumption. Indeed, we could well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago, and deny ourselves the improvements in living standards to which, only a few months ago, we have been looking forward. In the light of this change of circumstances, Stage III of the counter-inflation policy now appeared if anything too generous.
"Against that background we turned to the coal miners' dispute and the T.U.C. initiative. The T.U.C. representatives stated that they were prepared to say that the miners were a unique case, that other unions would not use the special nature of the mineworkers' case as an argument in their own negotiations, and that the T.U.C. itself would not come to Downing Street in support of any other case this year. They claimed that in giving this undertaking they would be going further than the T.U.C. had gone before, and indeed could go no further, to ensure that any special settlement for the miners was not followed by excessively inflationary settlements of other claims. Their initiative had been almost unanimously approved by their special meeting on January 16.
"For my part, I made it clear that the Government recognised the significance of the undertaking offered by the T.U.C. and unreservedly accepted its sincerity and genuineness. Nor did we doubt that they could secure the implementation of the specific undertaking they were prepared to give.
"But the fact remained that the offer already made to the N.U.M. was in our view fair, and, in the economic situation facing us, as generous as we could afford. Within the limits of the Stage III pay code it treated the miners as a special case, and would in fact more than restore their relative position as it was immediately after the Wilberforce award.
"The N.U.M. had resorted to industrial action last November, more than three months before their existing
1304
agreement was due to expire. In the meantime 4 million people had accepted settlements within the Stage III pay code; and the change in our economic circumstances made it more rather than less difficult to envisage increases in excess of the Stage III code. Other groups had the same sort of power as the miners to damage industry, cause hardship in homes, and disrupt the life of the nation.
"I had therefore to say to the T.U.C. representatives that, if the miners' use of their industrial power was seen to lead to a settlement which was excessive by the standard of Stage III—and the nation certainly cannot afford more—there was nothing in the T.U.C.'s undertaking to prevent such groups from following the miners' example, and using their industrial power to seek to extort excessive settlements. The T.U.C. representatives agreed that this was the case, and emphasised that there was nothing further they could do by means of their undertaking to prevent that happening.
"I made it clear, and the T.U.C. representatives accepted, that the Government was not rejecting their initiative, or questioning its sincerity. In deed, it remains on the table, and I expressed the hope that we should be able to build on it in further discussions with the T.U.C. on future developments of counter-inflation policy.
"But the fact remains, and the T.U.C. representatives agreed, that in present circumstances their initiative would not protect us against the use of industrial power, by those who might be minded so to use it, in pursuance of settlements at a level which the country cannot afford. That is a risk which in present circumstances we cannot run.
"Mr. Speaker, a fair and generous offer has been made to the miners. I will, with permission, circulate details of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that honourable Members will see that full use has been made of the provisions in the Stage III pay code which enable us to treat the miners as a special case.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have made it clear that the Government is ready, as soon as normal working has been resumed, to

1305
start immediate discussions with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers on the future of the coal industry, on improvements in pensions and in provisions for health hazards, and on the pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements.
"So the Government has done everything in its power, within what it believes to be right in the interests of the country as a whole, to make possible a settlement of this dispute.
"The T.U.C. has also offered everything that is in its power to offer to limit the consequences of a special settlement for the miners. The fact that we have had to say that it does not go far enough to prevent the dangers we fear does not mean that we fail to recognise the importance of the step they have made, to which I again pay tribute.
"But there is a third party involved in this affair, with whom the responsibility

THE N.C.B. OFFER (to be operative from 1st March 1974)

(i) New minimum basic rates:

£27·59 for surface workers

(+£2·30).

£29·86 for underground workers

(+£2·57).

£39·36 for face workers

(+£2·57).

(ii) Increased shift payments

To be 17p an hour between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. for everybody (in lieu of 2½p for day wagemen only).

(iii) Increased holiday pay

To be paid at time rates prevailing at time of holiday, with minima of £61 for the main 2 weeks and £5·70 per day for the remaining 19 holidays.

(iv) Additional statutory holiday.

(v) Retirement benefits

Lump sum at age 65 raised from £300 to £500. Increases for incapacity retirement from age 51 to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vi) Death benefits

Benefits to be provided for all deaths in service to apply from 1st January 1974.

(vii) Efficiency payments

Up to 3½ per cent, if a scheme is agreed and approved by the Pay Board.

(viii) Threshold clause

In accordance with the Pay Code.

(ix) N.C.B. statement of intent to improve sick pay when circumstances permit.

(x) N.C.B. to discuss the implementation of a third week's holiday as soon as circumstances permit.

The Coal Board estimate that the offer (items (i) to (vi) only) would cost about £45 million (13 per cent.). These figures exclude the increased overtime payments resulting from the higher minimum basic rates. In addition all miners enjoy fringe benefits, worth an average of £2·64 per week.
In addition, the Government has told the National Union of Mineworkers that, if they were prepared to accept the settlement available to them under Stage 3, the Government would be ready, immediately after normal coal supplies were resumed, to discuss with both sides of the industry the future of the coal industry, the manpower requirements and the arrangements for pay and for other conditions of service appropriate to a modernised industry in the longer term.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for having read this lengthy Statement. The fact that there is very little about the position of the actual dis
bility for the future now rests. That is the National Union of Mineworkers. The offer which has been made to them, together with our proposals for discussions about the future of the industry responds to their case for special treatment, within the limits of what the country can afford, and provides a basis on which a secure future for the industry, and for employment in it, can be established.
"I very much nope, therefore, that the National Union of Mineworkers will recognise this, and will conclude that acceptance of the offer on the basis I have described will do justice not only to the aspirations of the miners but also to the needs and circumstances of our country of which we are all citizens."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following are the details of the offer to the miners referred to in the Statement:
putes which are going on I shall refer to briefly. I think we are in one of the most desperate situations, and the Government must carry the full responsibility for this; they must be prepared to justify in debate very soon what is

1307
said in this Statement. There is one good item in it, the possibility of a return to a five-day week. But this, of course, immediately raises a question as to the judgment that led to the introduction of the three-day week. The noble Lord appeared to talk about disputes which disrupt the life of the nation, but I am bound to say that I think the Government carry a heavy responsibility for disrupting the life of the nation. I am particularly disturbed by the implication contained in the Statement that,
" … we could well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago, and deny ourselves the improvements in living standards to which, only a few months ago, we have been looking forward."
The fact that we shall see a decline in our living standards was settled before the miners' dispute and, indeed, before the new oil position. This was made very clear by Mr. Gordon Richardson the other day.
My Lords, I think it is a tragedy that the Government have not accepted what I think Mr. Whitelaw would have called the olive branch that the T.U.C. put forward. The Government have acknowledged that in fact this was a remarkable development on the part of the T.U.C., and they say that they would like to build on it. But by their action now their chances of building on it have gone. I say with absolute seriousness to the Government that we may well see a worse situation with regard to the dispute in the mines. We shall see bitterness growing in this country. We do not know what is going to happen.
The Government may say they are right to be indecisive at the present moment. Are we to have an Election? If the situation is so serious, ought we not now to have an immediate Budget? What are the Government going to do? Obviously we cannot debate this fully this afternoon. I find it very difficult, in a situation of such acute seriousness, to find words that will not exacerbate the seriousness of the situation further. The Government were given an olive branch. They could have got the nation fully back to work. They have turned it down; and they have turned it down in pursuit of a policy which they must know they are not going to be able to enforce. As I said when we debated this
1308
subject before, the Government may or may not be right in their policy and their judgment of what ought to be done, but they are not going to succeed in it. We shall have to debate this very soon. I would only urge the Government to be a little more restrained in putting all the blame on the miners when so much blame attaches to their own misjudgment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely clear from these Benches that we fully support the protection of Stage 3. This, I think, is absolutely essential when we are facing the inflation that is before us at the moment. I can quite understand the Coal Board and the Government not wishing to negotiate under duress while an overtime ban is on. But I stress "negotiate". Surely it might be wise to consider whether it would be worth while undertaking discussions, not negotiations, on the future of the industry as a whole even while the overtime ban is on. If it were possible for the Government to get the Coal Board and the miners to discuss seriously within wide parameters the whole long-term future and pay structure which is bound to be required for this industry against the background of the new energy situation, it might make a great deal of difference. Would there not perhaps be a chance of the miners accepting the present offer—and I do not see any reason for increasing it, because we have to protect Stage 3— if it were shown to be a stepping-stone to something much more advantageous over the next three or four years?
On one matter of fact, I heard in the Statement that pensions were to be apparently put to the next stage of discussion and negotiation. But under Stage 3 pensions can be negotiated because any contribution there is non-inflationary.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will expect me to enter into a debate with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition about the points he has made. This does not seem to me to be the purpose of this Statement. I would only say this to him. It seems to me that the paramount duty of any Government, of any complexion, is to protect the living standards of the people of this country, and if possible, in so far as it lies within the power of the

1309
Government, to see that inflation does not erode those standards. I think your Lordships should consider very carefully the consequences of action by a Government which, because of industrial action and the power of one section of the community, sees those living standards put at risk by inflation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is quite right in what he says about that.
We will of course debate at some other time all the other matters which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wishes to debate. He is not right, if I may say so, about the four-day week. I think that the figures which have been produced by the Government prove conclusively that had the three-day week not been introduced at the time it was introduced then the position of the coal stocks in the middle of February in an ordinary winter would have been quite disastrous. It would have been most imprudent of any Government to do otherwise than take the action that Her Majesty's Government in fact took.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, about having further discussions, leaving aside whether this is possible or not, or whether it would be desirable or not, the difficulty is, as I understand it, that Mr. Gormley has made it abundantly plain that he is not prepared to negotiate with the Government or anybody else unless there is more money on the table.
3.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that we do not want to have a protracted debate, would he at least answer one point made by my noble friend; namely, that the fact that we may well have to be content with the living standards of a year ago has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the miners are working flat out on a five-day week and that this enormous threat posed by the balance of payments deficit arose before the miners started working on a full five-day week?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that there is any need for the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to get quite so indignant. If he will look at the Statement and read it carefully, he will see that the context in which that remark was made was the context of the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining
1310
to the T.U.C. the whole economic situation in which this country finds itself. And, of course, it finds itself in an economic situation which, as we know, because we saw the trade figures yesterday, was made more complicated by the big increase in commodity prices, which accounts for most of the deficiency in our balance of payments; which is even more complicated by the quadrupling of oil prices; and which will be more complicated still if the miners' dispute continues.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that he has missed one of the finest offers I have ever seen in a lifetime of trade unionism offered by the T.U.C. to try to make conciliation possible in this dispute? Is he further aware that what happened yesterday, after weeks and weeks of meetings, has most certainly disillusioned all of us in the trade union movement and has most certainly hardened the miners' attitude, as we will find in the course of the next few weeks. We shall all come to the conclusion that the Government are adamant on a confrontation with the trade unions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the Prime Minister's Statement made it perfectly clear that he paid tribute to what the T.U.C. sought to do, but for the reasons which he set out in the Statement he did not think, and the Government did not think, that this went far enough. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this. In the light of the economic situation with which this country is faced, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, drew attention, and to which noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite nodded their heads, perhaps it would be as well for all of us in this country to realise that if we pay ourselves too much we are going to find ourselves in even worse trouble.
LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, may I preface my question by the remark that I think, as most of us do, that the country is in a rather parlous state and that what is to be done should be looked at from that point of view. Is the noble Lord aware, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Blyton, that what the T.U.C. have offered so far is the greatest commitment in the

1311
whole history of the T.U.C. to any Government? I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the only way we shall win the battle against inflation that all Governments have been fighting since 1945 is by clear understanding and co-operation. Whether or not it is desirable is another matter, but it needs co-operation from the T.U.C. and the C.B.T. if we are to make progress.
When the Government say, as they say in the Statement, that they accept the assurance of the T.U.C. and yet they are not prepared to move at all in regard to the miners' claim, that it must be contained within Stage 3, do they not appreciate that this is the complete abrogation of collective bargaining? There has to be give and take even in this situation. I am sorry that the Government are in this situation, but it is not the only Government to have been in such a situation. There has to be give and take if this matter is to be settled. Finally, would it not be desirable for the Government to start thinking in terms of organising conciliation and arbitration to try to find a means of solving the problem?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody in the House could possibly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said in his opening sentences. Indeed it is contained in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I think there are two things involved, and I must repeat one of them again. I think that all your Lordships, everybody in this country, the Trades Union Congress and the employers, must now realise that the economic situation which this country is facing is very difficult indeed. We must also realise that what has been offered to the miners is more than anybody else will be offered under Stage 3. They have been treated, and are being treated, as a special case. It restores them to the position they were in after Wilberforce, and if Stage 3 is held they will retain that priority. I really do think that in these circumstances it would be right for the National Union of Mineworkers to look again at the very generous offer that has been made to them.
LORD BESWICKa: My Lords, if we accept, as some of us are disposed to do, the economic assessment which the noble Lord is now offering us, and if we remember
1312
that Phase 3 was worked out at a time when Her Majesty's Government were prophesying, or planning for, a 3½, per cent. growth in our national economy, does it not make it all the more absurd that we should have this confrontation on the basis of Phase 3, which so patently is completely unrealistic at the present time?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may use the same language as the noble Lord, it makes it all the more absurd that people refuse an offer which is more generous than anybody else has under Stage 3.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the nation as a whole welcomes the general idea that the national interest and the wellbeing of the nation must come first, as the noble Lord outlined? However, is he not also aware that at least the majority of the nation greatly deplore the attitude that the Government have adopted in this very serious situation? It would appear, particularly to the trade union movement, that in all the talks that have taken place between the Government and the Trades Union Congress and others, it has not been a question of the Government seeking to find a compromise and to gain the co-operation of the trade union movement in getting out of these difficulties, but that the trade unions have been called together to hear the diktat laid down by the Government in this particular series of situations. This is not something that can go down very well in a free society. Are not the Government aware that their insistence on this talk about Phase 3, and the attitude they have adopted, has led to more serious inflationary tendencies than would have taken place had a compromise been arranged? In view of the statement that this is the best offer that has ever been made to the miners, often referred to as l6½ per cent., are not the Government aware that this is not 16½ per cent but, to the vast majority of the miners, only 7 per cent., and that the rest is made up ultimately of fringe benefits? Is it not time that the Government got the nation back to reality?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the offer to the miners will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and noble Lords can see this. The offer amounts to 13

1313
per cent., with 3½ per cent, for production increases, and the total is 16½ per cent. Your Lordships may like to be reminded that the miners are insisting at the moment on an increase of 30 per cent. on their present pay. That is something that I think your Lordships should remember.
May I say this to the noble Lord opposite? Can he really justify what he has just said when, in the Statement, the Prime Minister not only says that that is the offer under Stage 3 to the N.U.M., but as soon as normal working has been resumed the Government are prepared to start discussions immediately on the future of the coal industry, on improvements in pensions, in provisions for health hazards, and on pay arrangements appropriate in the longer term to the industry's future and its manpower requirements? In fairness, I do not think that anybody could say that the Government have not tried, so far as they possibly can, to treat the miners as a special case.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, many of us have inhibitions about turning a Statement of this kind into a debate. Can the noble Lord tell us how soon we can have a debate on this Statement?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not a "usual channel"; but the usual channels are here.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the noble Lord influence them?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a practical question, not an academic question, in his capacity as Minister for Energy? On the assumption that the miners continue their ban on overtime, what are the prospects for a resumption of a five-day week, or even a four-day week? Does he envisage the possibility that the miners—and it may not happen—may respond to the appeal from the Prime Minister? Even if they have a ballot, there may be such a favourable response from the Prime Minister's point of view. But what does the noble Lord envisage if the miners, as a result of a ballot, have a full strike? Is there then any prospect of a five-day week, or a four-day week?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the miners responded to the appeal that has been made by my right honourable
1314
friend the Prime Minister, we could go back to a five-day working week to-morrow because the coal will be there. I am going to answer the noble Lord's question. Does he want to interrupt me before I do so?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the first question was the most important. What are the prospects of a resumption of the five-day week, or even a four-day week, if the miners continue the ban on overtime?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was only answering the questions in the reverse order. If the noble Lord will allow me to do that, I will. I was saying that if there was a full resumption of work by the miners, there would be no problem about going back to a full five-day week tomorrow morning. If the industrial action now being taken by the miners continues, and if there is average weather, and if, when I see the figures this week, they do not appear to have deteriorated from what one might expect compared with last week, then I think that there is a good chance that we shall be able to go to the equivalent of a four-day week. If there were an all-out strike by the miners, then naturally the prospects would be very much worse indeed.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, as a practical miner, may I say on the Statement the Minister has made in regard to a five-day week, that it is impossible under the present circumstances? People have had to man the pumps, look after the winding gear, the shafts, the airways, and so on, but there will still be an amount of damage inside the mines in this country which will take some time to overcome. From the practical point of view, it will take some time for the miners to put the mines into proper working order and condition. I say that quite seriously to the Minister. Arising from his Statement, would he not agree that while much tribute has been paid by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the attitude of the T.U.C. — and this has been commented on by my noble friends on this side of the House—because of what has been done in response to the attitude and manner of the T.U.C., is it not true to state that more credence has been given to the point of view expressed by the C.B.I., and that the Government have given more support

1315
to their view as compared with the proposal made by the T.U.C.?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Government seek to act, and I believe in this case are acting, in the interests of the country as a whole.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I have two points. First, is the noble Lord intimating to the House that our present economic difficulties are due to the overtime ban by the miners? Secondly, I contest his assertion that what has been offered to the miners is more generous than offers to other workers. It is not 16 per cent. to all the miners. To some of them it would be only 7 per cent., and only 2½ per cent. of the manpower in the industry would get the maximum amount.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I have answered the noble Lord's first question, and the second will be answered when he sees the figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he recognises, as I certainly do, the fact that in the long run the only people who can settle the differential wage pattern of this country are those with the power to do so; that is, the trade unions? If he recognises that as a principle for the future, does he also recognise that this olive branch held out by the trade unions is the first time that they have taken a hand in settling at least one differential? On those grounds will the noble Lord please go back to the Prime Minister and say, "This is not only an important olive branch, but is the beginning of a pattern of behaviour on the part of the trade unions which has the greatest possible significance for the future, and to turn it down in this way is possibly to cut off a highly productive attitude which has been shown for the first time."?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not for one moment seek in any way to suggest that the T.U.C. have not come a very long way. But if the noble Lord looks at what the T.U.C. have offered, I think he will agree that the result will not lead to what he suggests.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is difficult for
1316
us to accept the Government's view when the Government have been so often wrong? In effect, there has been no policy which has not been a complete U-turn of a previous policy, which they have asserted with the same arrogance, with the same certitude, as the noble Lord now asserts his views.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should find it difficult to believe the Government because they have been so often wrong. I find myself in much the same position with regard to the noble Lord.
4.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that the question of an early debate becomes very pressing indeed. It is even arguable that the House ought to order an immediate debate. I would say to the Leader of the House and his noble friends that we really must have a debate, possibly later this week. Many of us in this House feel, however important the legislation on the environment which is in front of us, that there is an air of unreality coming into our life in this country to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made a number of statements. I recognise their seriousness and the anxiety he feels but, even so, there were still errors. He said that the miners are insisting on 30 per cent., but the miners have repeated, again and again, that they are prepared to negotiate. They are not insisting. It is the Government who are insisting on a position which they have taken up. I shall really despair of the future of this country unless, even at this last moment, the Government accept the offers that are made to them. Probably we ought to talk through the usual channels, but I would say to the Government Chief Whip that we are exercising restraint in not pursuing the matter further now.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I will talk both to my noble friend the Leader of the House and to the Chief Whip, and I hope that the usual channels will talk together, about the possibility of a debate. If it is the wish of noble Lords opposite and of the House as a whole, I am sure that that can be arranged.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord will then be prepared to answer not only

1317
some of the questions that have been asked, by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, and others, but also some of the questions which I specifically asked him on the last occasion and which he did not answer?
LORD CARRINGTON: I thought I had, my Lords, and I am sorry. I certainly answered all of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. In fact, I answered one of them twice.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to pursue the point beyond saying that if the noble Lord would like me to do so I will repeat the questions. But I do not intend to do so, and the Liberal Back-Benchers can relax. But I ask the noble Lord to have a look at some of the questions asked in the last debate and to answer them, so that we can really survey the prospects for this country.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord who is responsible for energy that he has not answered any of my questions, and indeed I never expected him to do so. The Government are in a mess, and everybody knows it; and some of us would like to take the Government out of the mess, in the interests of the country. But the Government themselves are preventing that by their severity, by their ineptitude and by the fancy idea that they have in their heads that they can have an Election and then adopt what is in the mind of the Prime Minister, though not in the mind of the Minister for Energy—a squeeze on wages. That is what they are hoping to do if they get what they call a mandate from the country. They are now entering upon the most bitter opposition from the workers of this country, the miners and others, that ever they have encountered.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, some of those comments show the danger of embarking on an immediate debate following a Statement such as we have had to-day. There has been the opportunity to question my noble friend for something approaching 40 minutes. The Government Chief Whip and I will certainly discuss through the usual channels a further debate on this extremely important matter, but I think it is now the wish of the House that we should again resolve ourselves into Committee upon the Pro
1318
tectionof the Environment Bill. My Lords, I beg to move accordingly.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.16 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 100.
LORD MERRIVALE: To return to consideration of Amendment No. 100, may I say that I always hesitate to tread on legal ground, especially when I may be in conflict with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said. I understood him to say that the object of this Amendment is to make subsection (2) a little more effective, but I hope and trust that the Minister will agree with me that it is doubtful whether a magistrates' court would be sufficiently knowledgeable about the technicalities involved to amend a notice issued by a disposal authority. It is also open to question whether it would be within the propriety of a court to amend such a notice. I shall therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.
LORD STOW HILL: May I venture to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has just said? I quite agree that it might well be that a magistrates' court would say, in an individual case, that it did not feel qualified to substitute something else for the requirement contained in the notice, and if that were the case it would have to avoid using this third alternative. However, cases may arise when, clearly, a sensible change could be made. After all, one is dealing with intelligent people in magistrates' courts and whereas in some cases they might feel disinclined to make a change, in other cases it might be a very obvious and sensible thing to do, but as subsection (2) is worded they could not do that. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to create the power, so that it could be used in appropriate cases, and I submit that now and again appropriate cases are sure to present themselves.
4.20 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course, it is essentially a legal point that the noble Lord is raising, and I only hope I have understood him correctly. May I also say that when he

1319
talks about a third alternative I am not wholly sure that this expression would commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford; but I hope we shall not enter into an argument on that one. Clause 15(2) enables a person served with a notice under Clause 15(1), which deals with the removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions, to appeal to a magistrates' court against it and to rely on any of the four statutory grounds of objection in support of his case. If the court is satisfied that any of them is met, it will quash the notice. If the noble Lord is intending to extend Clause 15(2)(d), which makes it a defence that there is a material defect in the notice, then I am informed that his drafting would be defective and that this matter would need to be considered further. I can only say, as I have so often said before to the noble Lord, that this is what I am advised, and I must stand on it.
Another way of saying this is that if the Amendment is designed to allow the courts simply to amend an error in the notice and, by so doing, to enable a notice to remain intact, then we would support its aims at least, but we would contend that this is already achieved in substance by the use of the word "material" to qualify the defects in the notice. However, as the noble Lord has drafted the Amendment it seems to provide a very much wider power for a court to delete anything in a notice which it considers unsatisfactory, and we would not support an extension of the power of the courts on these lines. We would also resist the Amendment if it is meant to cover the grounds of objection against the notice listed in Clause 15(2), since it would equip the courts with a far greater control than is considered desirable over the contents of a notice, which may be technical. These are the notices issued under Clause 15(1). Logically, the Amendment could be applicable only to Clause 15(2)(b) and (d), so the Committee will appreciate the point being made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, that the courts do not regard it as part of their duties to amend the terms of notices on which they adjudicate. This would seem to be somewhat of an extension of their judicial powers. After all, there is no difficulty in the local authority itself serving a revised notice immediately after the court proceedings in
1320
the light of what has been decided in the court. Therefore, I must recommend the Committee to resist this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: First, may I answer the questions that were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. I do not think, if I may say so, that paragraph (d) is appropriately worded to bring about what I seek to achieve. The phrase "material defect" is not appropriate as wording, in my submission, to cover the case where you have a requirement which the court, when it looks at it, and after hearing argument of course, thinks is an unreasonable requirement. That is something outside the scope of those words. Secondly, the noble Lord says that, after all, if the court thought there was an unreasonable requirement and allowed the appeal, the authority could serve a fresh notice not containing that unreasonable requirement. What a shocking, silly waste of time! What is the point of loading that kind of unnecessary complication upon the courts proceedings? If the court hearing the case which is being argued listens to the appellant and is satisfied that one of the perhaps half-a-dozen requirements contained in a notice is an unreasonable requirement, and if, when it listens to the other side, it is still of the opinion that it is an unreasonable requirement, is it really sensible to say to the local authority, "We propose to allow this appeal because there is one requirement out of the half-dozen which we think is unreasonable. We have not got power to amend it; you go away and amend it, serve a fresh notice, let there elapse the number of days which it is required should elapse, and then, if the appellant appeals again, we can deal with it"? It really does quite unnecessarily complicate procedure, it involves more expense and, I would submit, is absolutely unnecessary.
I do not want to appear (may I use the word?) unreasonable, but I am not trying to be obstructive here. I really am trying to make this clause work better than I think it would work at the moment. This clause, one assumes, is going to be operative for years and years before it is amended. Many people will have their interests decided in accordance with its present wording. Surely the Minister can say that he will at least

1321
consider seriously with his advisers as to whether his answer is satisfactory. I submit it is quite unsatisfactory, and I ask him to say that he will take this clause away and look again at this Amendment to see whether the arguments which I have ventured to suggest to the Committee do not carry force, and whether he ought not to accede to the proposal which is made.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course I fully accept that the noble Lord is not trying to be obstructive, and I assure him that no more am I. I am perfectly certain that it would be reasonable to say that of course we will study every word that he has said. But I am bound to say, as I understand the advice I have been given, that I would not want to hold out too much hope of a very sympathetic hearing for what he has said.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, when he uses language like that, means it, and he has told me that he will consider the matter. I accept that at once, and I would therefore be grateful if I may have the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 3, leave out ("or withdrawal ").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 101. This is a simple, tidying-up Amendment designed to tighten the drafting of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 22, line 27, at end insert ("necessary forthwith to remove the waste and to take such other steps; or").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 102, and perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 103. These Amendments are designed to make it clear that in the case of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions a collection or disposal authority can remove the waste or take other steps to eliminate the danger, or remove
1322
the consequences of deposit, or both. This brings the paragraph into line with Clause 15(1), where one or other or both steps are specified, thus giving the greatest possible flexibility for dealing with the problems. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to be entirely clear about this matter. I am sorry, I may well be at fault, but am I right in supposing that the consequences referred to here are not necessarily connected with water pollution or danger to public health, but could be unsightliness or general disagreeableness? Is that what is meant by "consequences"? Are they different consequences? It is by no means clear from this subsection as drafted. I may say that I am entirely in favour of the provision
"forthwith to remove the waste and to take such other steps".
That is all right, but I am not quite certain whether it covers matters which are not affected by pollution of water or danger to public health.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I can give an answer to that question straight off the cuff. Perhaps my best course is to say that I will get in touch with the noble Baroness when I have taken advice on that particular point. I think she is raising a rather new point beyond what we are in fact seeking to do by this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if he cannot answer it off the cuff and I do not understand it, there must be something unclear about it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think the case has been made.
BARONESS YOUNG: The point has been made that it covers either of the two points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, or both. It could be extended to cover other matters included in the general amenities of the area.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Baroness has touched on the precise point of which I wanted to make certain. I do not know whether we can pursue it further at this stage, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, or the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would take advice and let us know specifically; and maybe draft the

1323
Amendment in such a way that it is made plain to all precisely what it is these consequences are meant to refer to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, at end insert ("or, as the case may require, may remove it and take such other steps").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment, No. 104, and Amendment No. 105 were dealt with when we discussed Amendment No. 99. I beg to move Amendment No. 104.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, after ("nor") insert ("caused nor knowingly").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 41, after ("deposited") insert ("or caused or knowingly permitted the deposit of").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.36 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 22, line 42, at end insert ("except such of the cost as the occupier or other person shows was incurred unnecessarily")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young I beg to move Amendment No. 107. This qualification to a collecting or disposal authority's power under subsection (6) to recover the cost of removal of waste follows the principle that a person should not be required to bear the cost of an unnecessarily extravagant expenditure by the local authority in remedying the consequences of deposits of waste. This Amendment seeks to bring the subsection into line with Clause 15(4)(b) where the word "reasonably" is used.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I seek clarification from my noble friend on this Amendment, and ask whether I am
1324
right in believing, bearing in mind the previous subsection, subsection (5), that it will be the authority which removes the waste from the land, or takes other such steps as may be required, and consequently it will be the authority alone which will have the relevant information on which to decide what the action is to be taken? I agree that an Amendment of this nature is needed. But does not my noble friend think that this Amendment could lead to unnecessary complications because the occupier or other person did not have all the necessary facts available to him? It could also, I think, lead to the undermining of a co-operative attitude between the occupier or other person and the authority. Therefore, would it not be preferable to place the onus upon the authority to justify the cost incurred, rather than to place the onus upon the occupier or other person to prove that the costs, or parts thereof, were incurred unnecessarily? Would not my noble friend agree that it would be more simple, practicable and particularly fair to place the onus upon the authority? Maybe I am asking a hell of a lot, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would say that I am—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord usually does.
LORD MERRIVALE: —but could my noble friend possibly consider, not withdrawing the Amendment—that would be going too far—but whether the Government might put in what would, in effect, be another Amendment to shift the onus in the way I am advocating?
VISCOUNT AMORY: If my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal does give him a reassuring answer, would my noble friend Lord Merrivale consider withdrawing the words "hell of a" before the word "lot"?
LORD CRAIGTON: I think that my noble friend Lord Merrivale has made a good point and I hope that the Minister will support it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We are getting into a fairly broad issue of principle when we talk in this way. This brings us back to what we have said so often during the

1325
Committee stage, that we want to set up responsible authorities who may be respected by the public they are attempting to serve. Of course I can see the case for putting the onus of proof on them, but I am inclined to feel that there would be a real danger in doing that if someone wanted to frustrate a waste disposal authority. It would open the door to an individual to make life impossible for the authority by asking for the production of a whole series of figures which it might be difficult to produce; and then having what no doubt my noble friend Lord Merrivale would call "a hell of an argument" about it. I think it best to leave the wording in this way. One hopes that the authorities will be reasonable. Certainly, according to the way the Amendment is drafted, I should have thought that if an authority were unreasonable, an individual would have a good chance of making a claim against them stick. So I should be reluctant to follow the suggestion of my noble friend.
LORD HUGHES: I am a little disappointed by that answer. I do not want to go along the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and place the onus upon the authority to prove that the cost was reasonable; and I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. But I am unhappy about the way in which this Amendment is worded:
"except such of the cost as the occupier or other person shows was incurred unnecessarily."
To whom does the occupier or other person show this? How does he go about showing that it is unnecessary? And having found out to whom he shows it—presumably it would be to the local authority—who decides that it is unnecessary? Is it the authority which made the decision in the first instance? And if the occupier has made out what seems to him a good case, but the authority says, "Sorry, chum, we do not agree with you", is that the end of the matter? Where does the individual go from there? Does this give him the right to go to the court and say, "I have shown that this is an unnecessary or an unreasonable cost", and does the court then decide the matter? If it is merely a case of going to the authority then it could turn out to be a waste of time.
LORD CRAIGTON: I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I feel that at least the authority should not unnecessarily withhold information which is requested.
BARONESS YOUNG: I would not wish the Committee to think that there is something very unusual about this Government Amendment or that it is trying to incorporate something which is going to do anybody down. The purpose of Clause 15 is to enable either a disposal or a collection authority to remove or take other remedial action to deal with waste deposited on land which is not licensed for disposal purposes. This is exactly the point which has come up on a number of occasions: it is a point over which several noble Lords have expressed concern, and we must do something about it. In the specific Amendment which has been put down, the question of costs would be either those incurred by the disposal or the collection authority. But in the last resort it is the courts who would hold the ring between the occupier and the collection or disposal authorities and would perhaps have the last word in determining what was right. I should have thought that this was an accepted procedure on these matters.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Special provisions with respect to certain dangerous or intractable waste]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("specified in the regulations as being waste")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. This makes a small contribution by cutting out seven words and thus shortening what is by any standards a rather lengthy Bill. It is a purely drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI beg to move Amendment No. 109.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 11, leave out from ("to") to end of paragraph and insert ("matters connected with the disposal of special waste.")—[Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.42 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in any regulations made under this subsection shall be deemed to exempt the occupier of any premises from any requirement to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 or from any conditions contained in any such licence in circumstances where special waste comprises a petroleum spirit or other substance to which the licensing provisions of the said Act of 1928 apply.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships will know that Clause 16 contains very wide regulation-making powers covering a number of aspects of what is described as "special waste". "Special Waste" is waste which is particularly dangerous because of certain of its ingredients and it is therefore thought to require special treatment. There already exists in existing legislation (namely, the Petroleum Consolidation Act 1928) a very full system of registration and controls relating to special waste, if I may so describe it, which has a petroleum content.
The object of the Amendment I am now moving is in effect to prevent duplication. To take Greater London as an example, the Council is the licensing authority already for the purposes of the Petroleum Consolidation Act 1928 and under the terms of this Bill the Council will also become the disposal authority. In those circumstances, it may well be that the Council in Greater London would have to prescribe by regulations for registration and control of precisely the same special waste: first viewed as special waste per se and otherwise viewed as special waste with a petroleum content. That makes for unnecessary complication. It would mean there was duplication of the registration procedure, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a situation which should be avoided. The proviso I seek to introduce would enact as follows: namely, that no regulations that are to be made under Clause
1328
16 will exempt the occupier of premises from any requirement under the 1928 Act to register waste which has a petroleum content and which as a result falls within the scope of the 1928 Act. This, in my submission, makes for simplicity of administration, avoids unnecessary duplication and the waste of time and money. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We can certainly say that we are in sympathy with the intention of this proposed Amendment, but there are one or two points I should like to clear up right at the start. I am advised that, as a matter of law, the regulations under Clause 16 would not have the effect of exempting the holder of a licence issued under the 1928 Act, the Petroleum Act, or any similar Act, from complying with its conditions. In practice, there is not likely to be any conflict between the regulations and any licence condition. As I understand it, regulations governing the disposal of special waste are likely to deal, in the interests of preventing pollution, with such matters as procedures and precautions to be preserved during the handling on waste disposal premises of equipment and plant used for disposal and segregation from other wastes. On the other hand, licence conditions are concerned with the siting of the storage places, methods of storage and the precautions designed to prevent fire and explosion; and of course we should consult the Home Office (who are responsible for the 1928 Act) before making any regulations relating to petroleum spirit or indeed any other substance to which the licensing procedures of the 1928 Act applies, in order to ensure that there was no overlap.
We think it could conceivably prove harmful to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, because it could suggest that there should be other saving provisions for other statutory codes which Clause 16 could not, as a matter of law, displace. So I hope the Committee will accept that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary, though I should like to assure the noble Lord that any overlaps of this kind are being and will be discussed and sorted out by the various Ministries concerned.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As

1329
to the first point he made, when the Amendment was put before me I rather wondered myself whether there could be duplication in view of the wording of Clause 16(1), but I came to the conclusion that there was a risk in it because of wording appearing in paragraph (a). That paragraph provides that regulations may be made in the case of dangerous waste, requiring
" … that it should be disposed of by disposal authorities or other persons in accordance with the regulations …".
Rightly or wrongly, it seemed to me that that introduced some doubt, and for that reason I thought it was appropriate to trouble the Committee with this Amendment. However, if the noble Lord will be so kind as to say that he will consider the matter with his advisers I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNTROYAL: I beg to move Amendment No. 110. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
BARONESS WHITE: Surely this is more than a drafting Amendment. Could the noble Lord clarify it slightly? I should have supposed it was taking out quite an important provision.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNTROYAL: I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady White, is saying. Perhaps I should have explained it. Clause 80 already provides sufficient powers of entry for the purpose stated, so this paragraph is thought to be unnecessary.
BARONESS WHITE: Had the noble Lord said that at the outset I should not have had to ask my question. I thank him very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask a question for information? At the end of the page, in line 43, it says that certain wastes are,
"to be disposed of only by the Secretary of State;"
One can hardly see the Secretary of State in person going round the country
1330
disposing of waste. May we be told what type of organisation exists for this purpose? The Department is not normally a disposer of waste. I confess my ignorance in this, but I assume that under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act there must be some special arrangement for dealing with this. I wonder whether we could be enlightened as to what the organisation might be?
BARONESS YOUNG: Could the noble Baroness give me the reference in the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: It is on the clause that we are discussing, Clause 16, on page 23, at the end of subsection 2(a). It says,
"to be disposed of only by the Secretary of State;".
BARONESS YOUNG: This clause refers to toxic substances and provides for the Secretary of State to make further safeguards on the more dangerous substances.
BARONESS WHITE: He actually disposes of the waste.
BARONESS YOUNG: This is referring to the regulations he makes for the disposal of the wastes. If I am not interpreting that correctly I will write to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged because, according to this subsection, he disposes of the waste. I was puzzled at to what organisation of the Department equipped it to deal with these particularly intractable forms of waste.
VISCOUNT AMORY: The Secretary of State may require instruction from the noble Baroness herself who carried out exploration in depth in waste disposal during the Christmas Recess.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application of preceding provisions to other waste]:
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 24, line 14, after ("effect") insert ("generally or").
The noble Viscount said: Having not moved 19 Amendments which have stood in my name, I hope it will be considered not unreasonable if I summon up enough resolution to propose an Amendment

1331
now. I therefore propose Amendment No. 110A. The object of the Amendment is purely probing. I hope that I may secure an assurance from my noble friend that the regulations made by the Secretary of State under this subsection may, in appropriate cases, refer to the whole of England and Wales as the prescribed area, and not only part of England and Wales. I am referring only to regulations for which such application may be appropriate. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the words "prescribed area" could carry that connotation in appropriate cases.
BARONESS YOUNG: This clause provides power for the Secretary of State to bring other classes of waste within the controlled waste category by regulation, subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. The objective of my noble friend's Amendment would be that these particular regulations could bring such categories of waste under the definition of controlled waste throughout the country or in selected areas. The intention behind the Amendment is one we should be glad to accept and I shall therefore be glad to consider this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Is the noble Baroness not in a position to say for once that she simply accepts it? All that is suggested here is that the words "generally or" might be inserted. It seems to me that an Amendment of this kind is one she might bring herself to accept. Just to get it on the Record, and make it plain to all concerned, could the noble Baroness indicate what is meant by, "waste other than controlled waste"? I am not asking this question frivolously it makes it so much easier for people who occasionally look at Hansard to understand what it is that we are about. I am assuming that it is mine waste or quarry waste. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could say what kind of waste might be referred to in any regulations under this clause.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I may deal with the first point, this is a matter on which I have taken advice and I must look at the matter again. I could not accept this Amendment just as it stands.
The noble Baroness asked me a question about wastes other than controlled
1332
waste. They are, as she mentioned, wastes from quarries and mines and farm wastes, which we have discussed at intervals. These are examples of that type of waste.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I do not quite know where I stand. I feel disappointed after my tremendous restraint—I thought I was going to carry all before me with this Amendment. I am not sure whether my noble friend is saying that she agrees. The sole aim of this Amendment is to ensure that in appropriate cases the prescribed area might be the whole of England and Wales and not part of it. I think my noble friend said she would need to consider this. But on the principle of the Amendment, I should have thought she could have told us whether it seemed reasonable that in appropriate cases it might be the whole area. If not, is she asking me to withdraw my Amendment because she will produce other words to the same effect, or simply that she will think further about it? If it is the latter, I will have to reserve the right to put down this Amendment again if her thinking is unproductive in meeting the point that I have raised.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. What I meant by saying that I would consider the Amendment was not that it needs to be re-drafted, but because our understanding of the position is that the clause as drafted meets the point that my noble friend wishes to make. If this is not the ease, then this would be another matter. That would be the point that we would look at. I hope my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My noble friend's reply is entirely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of disposal authorities as respects other waste]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HENLEY: Does the noble Baroness think that under Clause 18 a disposal authority might be able to concern itself with the question of straw burning? Unfortunately, at present there is no alternative to burning straw. In

1333
spite of great efforts by the N.F.U., by codes of practice and other matters, to try to prevent the callous and reckless burning of straw, it is sometimes burnt in a callous and reckless manner. Fairly recently a new by-law has been brought out by the Essex County Council and this is being looked at with great interest by other local authorities. It may well be that something could be done about it under Clause 18. What does the noble Baroness think?
BARONESS YOUNG: I must say that when I was going through this Bill and considering all the kinds of matters which might cone up I had not thought of straw burning as something which the waste disposal authority should concern itself with. This is a matter which has been brought to my attention. I know that it causes concern, but I do not believe that it would come under the waste disposal authority. I should not have thought that within the powers of this clause, though I know it indicates that disposal authorities may collect information about non-controlled waste—which of course would include farm wastes—straw burning would necessarily be one of the things which they would be obliged to discuss. However, as I have indicated, this is a matter that has caused concern, and discussions are in fact going on now with the Home Office about the whole subject.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Street cleaning]:
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 24, line 31, after ("(1)") insert ("Except in so far as the next subsection provides to the contrary")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 111, which is a paving Amendment for No. 112. With permission, therefore, I should like to speak to both Amendments at the same time. As I understand it. Clause 19 is based on Section 77 of the Public Health Act 1936, under which the present district councils have the power, but only the power, to undertake the cleansing of streets. Under this clause, the new district councils have a statutory duty to undertake the cleaning of all highways in the new districts except in the case of inter-urban highways. Section 77, to which I have already
1334
referred, enables the local authority to make arrangements with the highway authority to do the work on terms agreed between them and to recover from the highways authority that part of the costs which was held to be due to the maintenance of the street and the safety of traffic. Clause 19 substantially repeats these provisions. Section 77 also enabled arrangements to be made conversely between the two authorities concerned.
While the practice varies, I understand that generally in country areas the county council carries out the street cleaning which is in the interest of the maintenance of traffic and safety, but no more. In town areas, district councils do the work to a higher standard required for public health purposes, recovering from the county council an appropriate part of the cost. The new Association of County Councils is anxious that the arrangements made for highway cleansing in the future shall be effective and economical, and it believes that the best way of ensuring that would be to have the highway authority remaining responsible for cleansing in country areas, as at present. It is also concerned about ensuring that the respective responsibilities of the two authorities should be clearly defined.
The new local government organisation, coupled with the proposals in this clause, makes highway cleansing the duty of district councils rather than merely giving them the power to carry out the work. This may lead to some district councils seeking to take over much of the highway cleansing in country areas. This would seem to be an uneconomic and inefficient use of resources. The clause as it stands runs the risk, it is thought, of confusing the public health duties of districts with the highway duties of counties or the Secretary of State. The aim of these Amendments is to clarify the responsibilities of the two authorities and, at the same time, to enable counties and districts to make the most sensible arrangements in each particular area. The agency arrangement under the Local Government Act 1972 is one instrument that is available, and a national formula for sharing expense could be agreed and adopted for these new proposals, as has been the practice in the past. In these circumstances I hope that the aim of these

1335
Amendments may be acceptable to my noble friend.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have no wish to repeat all the arguments that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has used. It seems to me that the Government would do well to accept his Amendment to bring clarity where at the moment there is room for confusion. I very much hope that the Minister will indicate acceptance of the Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Amory said, and I recognise that difficulties can arise through shared responsibilities of highway authorities and the district councils in matters of street cleaning. As he has indicated, highway authorities maintain streets and are responsible for the safety of traffic on them, whereas district authorities are much more concerned not only with the cleansing of the streets but with the amenity of the area and the public health aspect. So not only do the authorities have two slightly different functions, but there is of course this question of the area for which each authority would be responsible. In these circumstances, I am very glad to consider the Amendments that the noble Viscount has put down. In fact, we will bring forward Amendments on this point to clarify the situation. I cannot promise that the Amendments will be down in time for the Report stage in this House, but we are glad that this matter has been brought to our attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. As I say we shall be bringing forward our own Amendments on the point.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Litter]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 116 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 117 to 124 inclusive.
5.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 25, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of a local authority in England and Wales to consult with such other local authorities and voluntary bodies as the authority considers appropriate and as agree to participate in the consultations, about the steps which the authority and bodies are to take for the purpose of abating litter in the authority's area; and it shall be the duty of the local authority—

(a) to prepare and from time to time revise a statement of the steps which the authority and bodies agree to take for that purpose; and

(b) to take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity in its area to the statement; and

(c) to keep a copy of the statement available for inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.

In this subsection "local authority" means a collection authority, a parish council, a parish meeting and a community council.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 116. May I say, before I go any further, that have an idea that I am cutting out Amendment No. 124, by cutting across a line that I had not intended to cut, and that my noble friend Lady White intended to pursue?
I have tabled this Amendment because it seems to me that, at any rate so far as England is concerned (although I appreciate that my Amendment goes beyond England), litter abatement is a matter which can be dealt with better at local level than at county level. The clause as drafted confers the duty of dealing with litter upon waste disposal authorities as well as local authorities. It is as well to take a look at the definition of "local authority" set out in the clause, because "local authority" here means not only a collection authority, which of course is a district council, but a parish council, a parish meeting, or a community council. Those local authorities are invited to involve voluntary bodies as well. It seems to me, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, that this is a function that the top-tier authority ought not to be saddled with. If we leave in the disposal authority, it seems to me that it is going to be up to the county council to take the initiative. I should have thought this was a case where local initiative, local enterprise, could best deal with the situation.

1337
It seems to me that if the top-tier authority remains in this area of activity, we run a considerable risk that we shall get one meeting at county level, whereas we could have meetings all over the place if the matter were left in the hands of the local authorities.
I ought to say that this Amendment accords with the views of the Greater London Council, with all their considerable experience in this field. We want to get rid of litter. We want to involve as many people as we can in securing its abatement, and it seems to me that this is a matter which we could leave to the local authorities as defined. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: It might be convenient if, in disposing of this Amendment, we looked also at some of the subsequent Amendments. What worries me about my noble friend's Amendment is this. I knew that he was not proposing to move Nos. 117 or 118 and that there was a slight disparity between us on No. 116. The reason why I hope that Amendment No. 118 or the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, No. 120—which might be the better way of doing it—or No. 124 will be included so far as Wales is concerned is because of the position of national parks. This applies also in England, where the county authorities have interests in litter in national park areas and where it would seem undesirable for them to have no locus standi in this matter of litter collection. It was partly for this reason that we were anxious to include in this process of consultation the county authorities—as I say, certainly in Wales. I have not had any particular approach from English counties on this matter, but I would have supposed that in certain areas in national parks in England similar considerations apply. I wonder whether, before we make up our minds on any of these Amendments, the noble Baroness may like to say a word about this. I was glad to see her own Amendment, No. 120, and was proposing in the circumstances to accept that, in preference to my own Amendments, Nos. 118 and 124. Perhaps she would like to discuss these matters in relation to No. 116.
BARONESS YOUNG: It may be helpful if I intervene at this point to say something about the drafting of this clause
1338
and the Government's view about this very vexed question of litter. One only wishes that one could produce a solution that would somehow improve the situation. I accept that the Amendments that have been put down are all designed to that end. May I say right away that I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady White, is prepared to accept my Amendment about Wales, and I hope that that meets her points about this question in the Principality. Under the clause as drafted we have given disposal authorities overall responsibility for the problem of litter. We have suggested—indeed, our view is—that there are various ways in which they can tackle this. There is immediately the question of more education and publicity; there is the very practical way of producing more litter bins and receptables. There is the method of enforcement with fines for offenders; and, finally, there is a very good cleaning-up service so that even if litter is dropped the place does not look as bad as it did before. All these various methods are being tried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was concerned that the top-tier authorities, the counties, should not themselves be responsible for the entire arrangements for the disposal of litter. If that were simply our view, it would be wrong; but we feel that the clause enables the parties to get together. It requires a disposal authority to consult the districts, the parishes, and such voluntary bodies as are appropriate, to find out what they think about the problem and see whether they have any ideas for dealing with it. It seems to me that there will be plenty of scope for co-operation and using our imagination. We hope they will make use of such organisations as the "Keep Britain Tidy" group; possibly make good use of charitable organisations and youth groups which contribute their ideas and experience on this matter. There could, for instance, be an annual conference organised on a county basis to draw attention to the problem and to see what could be done. I think and hope that efforts will be made in schools to make children very conscious that dropping litter is an anti-social habit. So I hope the noble Lord will feel that in drafting the clause as we have done we are trying to give the major authority, the disposal authority, overall responsibility for the

1339
disposal of litter, but we would expect them—and indeed they are required—to consult the statutory authorities, and we would expect them to consult any other organisations that could offer good advice on this matter, including the national organisation, the "Keep Britain Tidy" group.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, raised a point about national parks. I am bound to say that she has a real point. This is something we should look at again. In fact, the counties would be the disposal authorities, but of course one hopes that very high environmental standards will always apply in national parks. Having visited a number of them personally, I know the care that is taken to have extra collections of litter and well-designed litter baskets, in order that the beautiful country shall not be spoilt. I think, therefore, that we should look at that particular point again. I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on our general principles on this, and that he will feel able to withdraw his Amendments in the light of what I have said. And I would say again to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I am glad she feels able to accept my Amendment about Wales.
LORD CRAIGTON: I was worried about the statement in Clause 20(1)(a), "to prepare and from time to time revise a statement of the steps". I almost put down an Amendment saying, "not less than every two years", or something like that, because, as the noble Baroness said, the whole idea is to get the voluntary bodies swinging along with the authority. What does the phrase "from time to time" mean? If the authority is lagging, then the voluntary body has no chance of giving it a kick, whereas if it is once every two or three years then one can be sure that it would be looked at more regularly.
BARONESS YOUNG: The clause is drafted in this way in order to give the freedom to the disposal authority to make their arrangements as they think best. I should be surprised if any amenity organisation which is really concerned about litter problems, as I think many are, would allow the disposal authorities to get away with doing nothing or being tardy in this matter. It could soon rouse
1340
public opinion about it if it felt that the disposal authority were not being as effective as they could be. This issue is simply concerned with the general problem of litter. It is a quite separate issue from the statutory responsibilities on street cleaning and so on.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what she has said. It is useful to have on record the comments that she has made. There is perhaps more in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, than has been appreciated this afternoon, and I hope that that question might be looked at again. The clause is very loose in regard to the matter he has raised; namely, the question of preparing and revising a statement.
I wanted to get the responsibility for litter abatement firmly placed with the local authorities, since it seems to me that they would be more sensitive than the top tier authority to pressure from local amenity groups or other voluntary bodies which might be involved in collecting litter. I feel that the county conference which the noble Baroness suggested might be held, in some cases would be the only meeting that might take place. After all, we are not concerned with a campaign for a limited period of time; we are concerned with a campaign that will continue indefinitely.
In regard to schools, one would like to think that appreciation of the need to avoid littering the countryside is already being taught and that if any further effort is needed we could well rely on the disttrict councils, the parish councils and the community councils to indicate dissatisfaction with the behaviour of children in their locality, if it was thought that children were irresponsible or were not playing as useful a part as they could do.
In the light of the reply that the noble Baroness has given, I must reserve the right to return to this matter. I am not saying that I will do so, but I should like to examine it and to consult with others with a view to seeing whether it will be necessary to return to it at Report stage, because I do not find the answer which the noble Baroness has given—on my understanding of it this afternoon—wholly satisfactory, although I appreciate that she has done her best to deal with I the situation as the Department sees it at

1341
the moment. It would be to the credit of the Department if it had another look at this matter. But having regard to what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 25, line 25, after ("authority") insert ("and, in Wales, the council of the county which includes the area of the disposal authority").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 120. In Wales the districts are the disposal authorities and are required by this clause to take the initiative in co-ordinating a litter plan. This Amendment seeks to provide for the districts to consult the Welsh counties in view of their general planning responsibilities—for example, the preparation of the structure plan—and to ensure that consultation in Wales, as in England, will be undertaken at all levels of local Government. It is in a sense the reverse of what is being done in England. Whereas here the disposal authority are required to consult the districts, it is the other way round in Wales. The underlying principle behind this Amendment is the same; that is, to bring the situation in Wales in line with that in England. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to emphasise that the point I made about National Parks is one which the noble Baroness has promised to look at, because she might wish to modify this clause in the light of that situation. But with that understanding I am very happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
Disposal of waste underground by Coal Board etc.
".—(1) Where the Coal Commission or the National Coal Board (hereafter in this section referred to respectively as "the Commission" and "the Board") or any licensees of the Commission or the Board have, in the course of operations carried on for coal-mining purposes, exercised in respect of any underground land a right conferred on the Commission or the, Board or the licensees by virtue of section 15
1342
of the Coal Act 1938 (1938 c. 52) (under which the Commission had and the Board have among other things, subject to the restrictions mentioned in that section, the right in the course of such operations to enter and to execute works and do the other acts there mentioned in underground land not vested in them), that section shall have effect in relation to the land as if the reference to coal-mining purposes included the purposes of disposing of waste.
(2) The preceding subsection shall apply to any underground land which—

(a) is neither land included in a mine of coal which is vested in the Board nor land to which the said section 15 as modified by the preceding subsection applies apart from this subsection; but

(b) is included in the boundaries of a cavity adjacent to such land as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

as if the Board had, in the course of such operations as are mentioned in the preceding subsection, exercised such a right as is so mentioned in respect of the underground land.
(3) Paragraph (e) of the proviso to the said section 15 (which provides that the Board and its licensees shall not by virtue of that section be entitled to do any act which apart from that section would be actionable as a trespass or nuisance and likely to cause damage of more than a nominal amount) shall not apply to any right exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section; but a person having an interest in any underground land who suffers damage by reference to that interest in consequence of the exercise of such a right shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Board in respect of the damage if the amount of the compensation will exceed £50, and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation in pursuance of this subsection or as to the amount of the compensation shall be determined by arbitration.
(4) The Board and any licensees of the Board shall not be entitled by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of this section to exercise any right in respect of any underground land unless they have not less than twenty-eight days before exercising the right, published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situated a notice specifying the right and indicating the location of the land and a place in the said locality at which a plan showing the location of the land may be inspected by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.
(5) Expressions used in this section and Part I of the Coal Act 1938 (1938 c. 52) have the same meanings in this section as in that Part."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 125. I hope that your Lordships will not be too frightened by this rather formidable-looking clause which is in fact designed to implement a comparatively small proposal. The clause is designed to implement the Government's decision that a legal obstacle to the disposal of waste

1343
in coal mines should be overcome. This is intended to permit the greater use of underground coal mine workings for the disposal of wastes where this is appropriate. There are at present about a dozen old coal workings which are used in this way. For example, there is one at Walsall Wood near Birmingham which has apparently achieved a considerable reputation in the West Midlands as it is one of the few safe places to dispose of toxic wastes in the region, and is extensively used for that purpose.
The problem is that in some cases the National Coal Board does not own the underground voids once the coal has been extracted from them. That can give rise to some difficulty and therefore the object of our proposal is to overcome this obstacle to enable the N.C.B. to make use of their voids to dispose of waste, subject to the proper examination of the technical problems and any pollution risks in each case, and subject to the site-licensing procedure which will apply to all waste disposal operations. We are well aware of the possible dangers of pollution through dumping in mines. Finally, may I add that the Department of Trade and Industry entirely endorse and support this proposal and have taken a lead with the National Coal Board in drafting this clause. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that I am a little concerned, not particularly about this proposed new clause in itself, but about the whole problem of depositing waste in mines. It seems to me in some respects regrettable that we could not have had a separate section of this Bill dealing only with the position of the deposit of waste in mines because it is referred to in this Part and Part II in various places. Some are working mines, although this would apply primarily to abandoned mines. Abandoned mines are outwith some of the provisions of this Bill and some of us who come from mining areas are worried because we feel that there is a great temptation to put waste into mines, and in some cases into worked-out quarries, about which we do not know enough. Mines, after all, are apt to be very wet places and therefore any substance which is deposited in a mine, and which may be harmful or toxic in some respect, can frequently seep into other waters. We shall be coming in
1344
Part II of the Bill to the question of underground waters. In the South Wales coalfields, for example, abandoned mines are apt to be at the upper end of the coalmining valleys because the strata there are usually worked out first. As we all know, water flows down hill, and if any toxic matter is deposited in an abandoned mine there is considerable danger, in spite of precautions which might be taken, that the noxious material might, through seepage, escape.
I do not for a moment want to oppose this new clause. I am only saying that this whole area fills those of us who come from mining districts with certain apprehensions, largely based on what we believe to be the insufficient knowledge, both scientific and in a sense geographical, about what actually happens, particularly to effluent. This Part of the Bill, of course, is dealing with solid waste, but solid waste in a very wet mine could quickly lead to effluent. The site licensing procedure, it seems to us, is something which in the case of mines should be carried out in conjunction with the river authority, not only the local authority which under Part I is the site licensing authority. It seems to me that we ought to be quite sure that we are not, by agreeing to this new clause, agreeing to some procedure whereby the river authority (the water authority under this new arrangement) will not have adequate consultation. I should like to be reassured on that point. In this Part of the Bill we are not dealing with water authorities and yet I hope that, certainly where Welsh mines are concerned, this would be a matter of concern to the water authority and not only to the site licensing authority.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to endorse what the noble Baroness has said. This question of waste in disused coalmines affects the part of the world in which I live, the Forest of Dean. If waste is put into a coalmine, which is often wet and has to be pumped out, one does not know where the water is going. It gets into springs and rivers. It is a matter which needs very careful thought. Speaking perhaps as a lawyer, I would suggest that to tack this on to the end of a clause dealing with litter is extraordinarily bad draftsmanship. I think it is really a matter which ought to be

1345
further considered. I would support what the noble Baroness has said.
LORD SOMERS: Some years ago, when we had that terrible disaster at Aberfan, I remember a suggestion being made that disused mines should be used for the purpose of disposing of material which at present goes into tips. In that way the disused mines would be made solid again and would, incidentally, avoid the danger of subsidence. Whether or not that is still a practical proposition I do not know, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I always find it easier to deal with things by starting at the end and working backwards while they are fresh in my mind. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is quite right in mentioning the possibility of stopping subsidence by putting stuff back into the mines. This is very much in the minds of many people, though we do not believe that there are going to be many places and occasions where disposal of waste in this way will be possible. This is part of my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady White. May I point out to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that this is a new clause, and therefore I would refute any suggestion that it is being tacked on as a footnote to another clause.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: It may be possible to deal with this more specifically when we come to Part II dealing with water. It worries me because the water authorities should have a considerable interest in this.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: It does have some impact on Part II, but we are dealing here with solid waste disposal. Perhaps that gives me the opportunity to answer the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord at the same time. The point which the noble Baroness made is perfectly correct. There are problems which are recognised about depositing toxic waste in mines, and there is no doubt whatever—and I should like to give a total assurance about this—that this would have to be extremely carefully gone into. One group of authorities which would have to be consulted first would indeed be the water authorities. I am sure that this is a point that is going to crop up a number
1346
of times when we are dealing with Part II.
As I said a moment ago, there would probably be fairly few mines which are sufficiently dry and sufficiently safe to allow this kind of procedure to be adopted. I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness meant when she said that this was outwith some of the provisions of the Bill. If I am missing a point which she was trying to make, I will do my best to deal with it in a minute or two. Of course we have a problem here. We do not want to minimise the reservations she may have; we do not at this moment want to claim that we have complete knowledge about any of these things. This is one of the things which increasingly comes out in any ecological studies that are going on in the contemporary world. The difficulty is that if you go too far the other way you end up by saying that you cannot do anything. There is no question whatever that if mines are dry and safe, they are exceptionally suitable places in which to deposit waste. I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied the Committee that there are suitable safeguards in this clause and that they will feel disposed to accept it.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be happier if the noble Lord could refer us to the section in Part II which would reassure us about this. There are certainly clauses in Part II in which abandoned mines are quite specifically exempted. For example, I have found one of these references on page 30, in Clause 23. After paragraph (f) it reads:
"a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of the preceding subsection by reason only of his permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter relevant waters."
There is one case in which you can do something in an abandoned mine which you are not allowed to do in other areas It was because of that kind of provision in Part II that I became somewhat concerned as to whether we were entirely satisfied here. This deals ostensibly with dry waste, but it is because in many conditions it would become wet waste that I am worried. I do not think we can pursue this usefully at this moment, but I should like to have an undertaking from the noble Lord that he will let us know in specific terms where we stand in this clause in relation to other provisions

1347
in Part II which do exempt abandoned mines in certain conditions.
LORD HENLEY: I think it is imporant that we should clear this up. When the noble Lord introduced his Amendment he implied that the full range of anti-pollution controls would apply to this clause, but when he answered some of the questions it became apparent that they could not be applied in full. I think to some extent this ties up with what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, that we simply do not know enough to know whether we can in fact apply the full range of controls.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for that intervention because this is really the point. This is solid waste and it is by no means exempt. If I gave the impression that the intention was to exempt it from the Clause 3 regulations about litter I was quite wrong in doing so.
BARONESS WHITE: It is waste, not litter.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The reservations and the regulations which apply to all solid waste apply just the same to waste being dumped down the mines. It is not particularly the limitations in Part II that we are looking for, although what the noble Baroness said is perfectly true. I think the short answer is that you are not allowed to release polluted water because you are not allowed to pollute the water under this Part of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: There is the other important point, about the position of the water authorities, and that they should be consulted or should have some sort of locus standi before the waste is deposited in any abandoned mine.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think that is indeed covered. We have spoken about the water authorities being consulted in Part I of the Bill. There is nothing in this new clause which exempts those who wish to deposit waste down a mine from still having to carry out all the requirements which go right through Part I of the Bill, about which we have spoken; and in particular, the
1348
noble Lord, Lord Henley, has raised the question about consulting the water authorities.
LORD HENLEY: Another interesting point is that the ownership of the soil—and the noble Lord raised this point—presumably reverts from the Coal Board to the original owner, whoever that might be. It is possible that this point will be raised under another Amendment later, but is it possible for such an owner to apply for a writ of injunction if he thinks that something is being done which should not be done?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I can give a really satisfactory answer to the rather technical point which the noble Lord has raised. In any case I think it would only be the holder of a licence who would be allowed to deposit waste down a mine. All the other provisions in Part I of the Bill would continue to apply; we are not treating a mine in a very different way from any other part of a licensed tip.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interference with refuse tips and dustbins etc.]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 26, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("or council").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move this Amendment. It is essentially a drafting Amendment and is designed to cover the case of litter bins provided by parishes, of which account was taken earlier in the clause. This Amendment is needed so that they may be included. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert ("or by the owner of the waste").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and I tabled this Amendment because, as I think one or two noble Lords indicated on Second Reading, we were a little concerned about the absolute nature of the provisions made in Clause 21, whereby it becomes an offence if one sorts over or disturbs rubbish, not only in a tipping area (which I

1349
think would be reasonable enough) but also if one does anything at all to disturb the contents of any receptacle for waste, unless one is authorised to do so by the authority or, in the case of a receptacle, by the authority of a council or other person having the function of emptying the receptacle.
Perhaps one is being pernickety about this but there are occasions when, for instance, even probably a Member of your Lordships' House might have taken a discarded newspaper out of a receptacle on the underground station, for instance. I have seen it done. This is not regarded as being particularly reprehensible. Also another aspect of this matter was put to me. Fortunately, we have not so many tramps these days, but there are still "gentlemen of the road", as they used to be called, who occasionally help themselves to things from receptacles or dustbins.
I will be quite frank with the Committee: I am not particularly happy about the way in which we have tried to improve the situation, because normally the owner of the newspaper would not be present and the owner of the waste in a dustbin might not be there to tell the chap that he could help himself if he wanted to. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this clause seems to be too absolute in its application, and I should have supposed that it would be extremely difficult to enforce. I am wondering whether a clause of this kind, which applies to any sort of receptacle supplied by any authority, is a sensible thing to include in any legislation. The question of tipping areas is an entirely different one because we do not want people messing about around those. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said. It seems to me that this is legislating de minimus. To make it an offence for someone without the proper authority to go and look to see what is in a dustbin seems to me to be going too far. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to give me a positive answer to this question: Supposing by mistake her handbag, containing no doubt (as it so often does) a large sum of money, was put into the dustbin, is she really saying that she would have to get the consent of the authority or
1350
other person who had the function—that does not mean anyone who likes to come along and empty it, but someone whose duty it is to empty it—before she could look in the dustbin for her handbag if she was not going to commit a criminal offence? As I read the Bill—and I may have read it wrongly—that seems to me to be the position and, if so, it seems to me to be a nonsense.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I have wonderful visions of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, totting for the missing handbag in local authority dustbins, which I presume exist somewhere outside your Lordships' House. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that we would not want to see him prosecuted for this kind of activity.
I think there is a genuine difficulty here. The common-sense answer is that we just do not want people rummaging in dustbins which are awaiting collection, and I think the noble Baroness would be inclined to agree with that. I cannot conceive that anybody is going to worry if a householder by mistake has tipped her engagement ring out with the rubbish from her house—I should say "waste" and not "rubbish" because we have had a little argument about that, too, have we not? I do not think there will be any trouble about that.
But the plain view is that once the dustbins are put out, there are good reasons of public health for saying that no one should be allowed to tamper with them. We believe that it would be rather excessive to start legislating in detail about the circumstances in which this tampering might be permitted. While what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said is true, one could imagine an even worse situation if the lawyers were allowed to have a field day arguing the circumstances. Indeed, I am advised that there is some question about who in fact the waste belongs to once it has been discarded in the way we are all envisaging. We are seeking a good common-sense answer to this problem. I am advised that this is the most commonsense decision that we have been able to arrive at so far, and we must stick to it. But in the light of what has been said, it is something that perhaps we ought to have another look at.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am not very happy about the answer. The noble Lord has treated my admittedly rather facetious question in a rather facetious fashion. I do not complain about that, and certainly I would not if he had answered the question. He has not said whether he agrees that anyone who went to his own dustbin to try to extract something from it which had been put in by mistake would commit an offence unless that person had obtained the necessary consent to extract that object. But that, as I read the clause, is its result, and I think that is wrong. We talk here about the rule of law. We ought to be careful about the criminal law in particular, and about creating innumerable criminal offences. So far as I can see, this clause creates a criminal offence which goes far too wide. I hope the noble Lord will have a serious look at it, apart from the fun, because I should not like to think of the noble Baroness taking the chance of being charged because her handbag was taken away in the dustbin and she commited an offence by taking it out herself.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am still in difficulty after listening to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. As I see it, all the noble Baroness could do to get her handbag back is to get an authorisation from the authority to "sort over or disturb" the receptacle. There is nothing about taking the handbag out of the receptacle.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I doubt whether one could take it out without disturbing the receptacle.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My grand-daughter found a dead mouse in a mousetrap. She has feelings about dead mice, so she threw mouse and mousetrap into the dustbin. I wanted the mousetrap back, but I should have committed a criminal offence if I had taken it out of the dustbin.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, although we have treated this matter, as the noble and learned Viscount said, in a rather facetious way, there is a serious point here. It seems to me to be bad law if it has in it an element of the ridiculous and creates a situation which it is virtually impossible, it seems to me, to enforce. It is for these two reasons
1352
that I would hope that noble Lords on the Government Bench will look quite seriously at this. I appreciate that there is sometimes the problem that people do disturb dustbins, but the number of people who go around tipping over dustbins is not, fortunately, very great. I imagine there is something else in our criminal law to deal with that situation, should it arise. I hear the word "bylaws" murmured in my ear, and that might also be a way to do it. I am going to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, but on the understanding that we are really quite unhappy about this part of the Bill, and seriously hope that it may be looked at again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 26, line 32, leave out from ("Scotland") to end of line 34 and insert ("for the references to a parish or community council there shall be substituted references to a highway authority within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 128. This is a piece of legal drafting. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has left the Chamber, because this is a Scottish matter. It remedies the reference in Clause 21 (1)(a) to "a parish or community council", since there are no parish councils in Scotland, and community councils would not provide receptacles for waste in Scotland. Instead, there is inserted a reference to the highway authority within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 which will ensure that receptacles provided by the highway authority will be safeguarded from disturbance by unauthorised persons. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause
Modification of Parts I and II to avoid duplication of control
". The Secretary of State may by regulations make such modifications of this Part of this Act and Part II of this Act as he considers appropriate with a view to securing that

1353
the provisions of one but not both of those Parts apply to prescribed acts and omissions."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 129. The purpose of this new clause is to enable the boundary between Parts I and II to be adjusted by regulation. There is not always an easy definition of discharge into water or deposits of waste, either solid or liquid, which makes clear exactly which is which. This regulation-making power will enable anomalies to be sorted out. We expect problems of this nature to be brought to our attention by those involved once the provisions are in operation, but it is important that the Bill should net make any confusing or unnecessary demands on waste disposers through overlapping controls and responsibility between waste disposal and regional water authorities.
To give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind, there might well be the use of settling lagoons or pipelines fitted with filters which might produce both effluent to water and solid or semisolid sludges for disposal on land. There might also be problems of interpretation over the use of new techniques such as deep well injection whereby geological conditions might safely allow the pumping of wastes into porous strata, or cavities such as those left by the extraction of salt. This has been developed by the United States of America and it is thought by many to be of possible application in this country. I agree that this may perhaps appear to be a futuristic scheme, but the first example is one that is very relevant. This new clause will enable the Secretary of State by regulation to define under which part of the Bill the particular problem falls. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment No. 129B:
Line 1, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with such bodies as he considers appropriate").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name. Its object is to ensure that consultation with appropriate bodies should take place on the principle behind any regulations made by the Secretary of State tinder this new clause. While I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would in fact carry out consultations, the absence
1354
of a provision to that effect looks a little odd here, compared with Clause 17 where there is such a provision. The regulations made under this new clause for the avoidance of overlapping can assign responsibilities to a waste disposal authority to the detriment of a water authority, or vice versa. It does seem in matters that could be of importance that it would be as well to put in a provision that appropriate consultation would take place. I would put in a plea to my noble friend that in due course, in the case of these many regulations that are to be made under this Bill, the Secretary of State will wherever possible be careful to enter into consultations with the local authority bodies, and in good time, so that their views may be put before the regulations are made. I beg to move.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask her to let us know not only what process of consultation the Government have in mind but also what part Parliament will play in the passage of these regulations before they become law?
BARONESS YOUNG: I would like to begin by assuring my noble friend Lord Amory that it is our intention that the Secretary of State will consult over all these regulations that could be made under this new clause. I realise that, as the President of the County Councils Association, my noble friend is naturally concerned that the local authorities might feel that something was to be done by regulation about which they had not been consulted. I am sure he will agree with me, however, that although the clause does not lay a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult, it is the normal practice of the Secretary of State to consult the local authorities when there is any question of making regulations of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will feel that the assurance I have given meets the case. As I am sure he must know very well, there is constant communication at many different levels between central and local government, and I am sure that if the local authority associations felt that some matter was being considered which materially affected them and on which they had not been consulted they would raise the matter themselves, so that in effect the point would be met.

1355
I may say that we should expect these regulations not to be on a major issue. They are provided for to cover something that might not be clear, but we hope that they would not be used to consider a major redistribution of functions between waste disposal authorities and water authorities. It is really intended to redefine minor anomalies that might arise between Parts I and II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked me how far Parliament would be involved in this. I do not think this is usually a matter for Parliament, because this will be laid down by regulation under the general terms of the Bill.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I realise there must be some limit to the number of times one can put in a Bill, "after consultation with appropriate bodies", but it seemed to me a little illogical to include it in subsection (1) of Clause 17 and not in this particular case; because there is always a slight risk that if you mention it in one case and not in another some people might conclude that in the second case there was not the same need for consultation. However, I think in this case I must be satisfied with the very genuine assurances the noble Baroness has given that consultation will take place in all appropriate cases, and if it does not, no doubt the local authority bodies who felt inadequately consulted would raise the matter in one way or another. It still seems to me a little illogical to include it in the previous clause and not here, but I accept the assurance given.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad to hear that the noble Viscount accepts the assurance I have given. We will certainly read and note what he has said. I should say further to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that in Clause 92 of the Bill most of the regulations, including the ones in this clause, will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN LORD ENERGLYN moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 27, line 1, leave out from ("means") to end of line 2 and insert—
("house refuse, industrial or commercial waste or any such refuse or waste").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 129A, fully realising that decisions have been previously made regarding the word "refuse" as against "waste", but in this case it seems to me that perhaps it might be wise to define it in terms of house refuse and in that way clear up a number of future ambiguities. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: We did in fact discuss this Amendment at the same time as an earlier one. I am sorry the noble Lord was not present in Committee when that matter arose. I can understand his concern because I think it is in common usage that concerning the household we do use the word "refuse" rather than "waste". Therefore, this wording does perhaps have a common understanding. The reason why the word "waste" has been used is that in Part I of the Bill it includes many other sorts of waste besides household refuse. The term "household" is defined in the Bill as being a house, or I think a caravan on a licensed site. The waste that is collected from thesd places is collected free. A distinction is drawn between such premises and commercial and industrial premises. The general word "waste" is used because it covers so much more than "refuse". Indeed, after hearing in speeches on many of the Amendments about the things that people might possibly put in dustbins, perhaps it is a better generic term than "refuse", which particularly applies to what one would normally think of as refuse from the house but has often included things like do-it-yourself materials, which was one example. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this general term covers the matter better.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am not quite sure that the word "waste" covers the handbag to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred.
LORD ENERGLYN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 27, leave out from begining of line 35 to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: We have had some discussion during these proceedings on builders' rubble, and I think on something to do with the output of hens other than eggs, and both matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I wish he was here, because I think we might at this stage have a more useful discussion on the definition of " waste " than we have had up to the present time.
I should like to ask the Minister where builders' rubble fits in. Is it simply a substance, or substances, no longer needed? It may well be that builders' rubble is not intended to be included in the definition of " waste " that we have set out at page 27. If it is, then subsection (3) of the clause would appear to include it in three different categories. It could be included in household waste, industrial waste, or commercial waste. It would seem that builders' rubble arising from alterations to a school sports pavilion is regarded as household waste, whereas from a factory sports pavilion it would be regarded as industrial waste, and from a council's sports pavilion it could be regarded as commercial waste. It is not clear from the clause whether agricultural waste, such as quantities of animal manure, is meant to be included in Clause 22, when one has regard to the definition of " trade effluent " in Clause 48. The Amendment is tabled as a probing Amendment, and anything that the Minister can say by way of making the position more clear would be welcome.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said. He has put his finger on what is, in effect, a very great difficulty; that is, the difficulty of the definition of " waste ". As he has indicated, in a sense it is not a substance that one can define very clearly, and it simply does not fit into any clearly defined pigeonhole where you can say, " This is one particular thing ". It embraces a wide variety of substances and materials.
1358
The way that the Bill has been drafted indicates, in general, the definition of " waste ", and it has excluded wastes from mines and quarries, and farm wastes. On the question of farm wastes, this again is a complicated matter, and my Department has set up a group with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of the local authorities and the farming interests, to study all the problems in detail and to explore the scope, and even the desirability, for greater local authority involvement with farm wastes within the general framework of the Bill. If, in the light of these investigations, it is thought desirable to bring some parts of the farm wastes within the ambit of the Bill, regulations could then be made under Clause 17 to bring this about. To make such regulations would be to take a substantial step, and we have therefore provided that they should be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament so that they may be properly debated.
As I indicated, we also left out mining and quarrying wastes. They have been left out of the controlled wastes. I accept that there are very large quantities of waste involved here, but there are some statutory controls over their accumulation and disposal in the Mines and Quarries Acts, and in Part II of this Bill. Mineral extraction is also subject to planning control; and the whole question of planning control over mineral operations, including the accumulation of waste, is currently under examination by the Stevens Committee. The noble Lord asked me specifically about builders' rubble. So far as builders' waste is concerned, that will be one of the matters which will be decided by regulation under Clause 22(4). So far as do-it-yourself waste is concerned, that will arise from the household and will be subject to the normal provisions governing household waste. Commercial builders' waste would come under the provisions for either commercial or industrial waste. Here again, I think that this would be a matter for consultation with the industry—into which category it would fall.
I should like to be able to give the noble Lord a more definite answer but, as I am sure he appreciates, the situation is one in which it is difficult to give him the kind of definition that he would like.

1359
We feel that we have gone as far as we reasonably can to give sensible guidelines to the new disposal authorities in their work.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. It is useful to have it on the Record. May I say that the Association of Municipal Corporations raised this with me, and it was because I could not reply to the points that were made that I thought it proper to probe the matter. The noble Baroness will appreciate that the subject of builders' waste is a serious matter. Even on the question of do-it-yourself there are some people who are enthusiasts in this field, and the collection authority may occasionally have reason to think seriously about the situation that might arise. I am grateful to have on the Record what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 131B:
Page 27, line 36, leave out (" a ") and insert (" an abandoned ")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment in the interpretation clause of Part I of this Bill is so that the term " waste " includes—
" (a) any substance which constitutes an abandoned scrap material or an effluent or other unwanted surplus substance arising from the application of any process;"
Unless scrap material is qualified by the word " abandoned ", or similar wording, the term " waste " could apply to all scrap material, including that which is to be reclaimed and used as a raw material. Therefore, this Amendment is designed to make it clear that the scrap material has been abandoned. It brings the definition of " waste " into line with that contained in the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, Section 1(2), which reads as follows:
" For the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as depositing waste if he deposits any substance (whether solid, semisolid or liquid) in such circumstances, or for such a period, that he may reasonably he assumed to have abandoned it where it is deposited … "
In effect, this is also in line with Amendment No. 24A moved by my noble friend
1360
Lord Amory and which, after discussion, was withdrawn. I hope that for this small point my noble friend will see fit to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: When I read this Amendment I thought the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, considered that the definition of " waste " in Clause 22 would include scrap metal only if it was abandoned—
LORD MERRIVALE: Scrap metal or scrap material?
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I meant " scrap material". I thought the noble Lord was interested in the effect on recycling operations in industry. As I have already indicated, this is a matter on which the Government will put down an Amendment. We very much accept the general principle. The noble Lord has now talked about the effect on the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act. I have already agreed to look at the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Amory to consolidate that Act into this Bill, so I will also take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said.
BARONESS WHITE: We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, because whatever the Government may be saying in their rather belated conversion to recycling—and we await the Amendment with the utmost interest and attention, and hope that we shall have it fairly soon so that we have adequate time to consider it—a point on the definition clause will hardly be covered by a broad Amendment on reclamation or recycling which the noble Baroness may later put down. So I am very glad that she will seriously consider this point.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to follow what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. Surely we want to exclude non-abandoned scrap from the definition of " waste ". Otherwise the whole paraphernalia of the Bill will apply to non-abandoned scrap and people will have to get permission to put it down anywhere. With great respect, this point will not be affected by an Amendment dealing with recycling. So is it not sensible to accept this Amendment to the definition clause, which cannot be

1361
intended to include scrap material that is to be used?
BARONESS YOUNG: During the course of this Committee stage I have been pressed on many occasions to accept Amendments right away, and I really do not think that I can accept this one. I have indicated that we believe we can meet the point of the Amendment by a different Amendment concerned with recycling. I have given an undertaking on the other point, and I cannot go beyond that promise.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been very conciliatory on quite a number of occasions. She has indicated that she will look at Amendments and consider them and, in some cases, has said that the Government will put down their own Amendment if they decide it is necessary. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has looked at all the 213 Amendments in preparation for this Committee stage, so does she contemplate accepting any of them?
BARONESS YOUNG: Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may I say that he is somewhat ungrateful as I have undertaken to look at a great many Amendments. When it was agreed that this Bill should first be introduced into this House, it was the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that we could make use of the very valuable experience and enorous interest of noble Lords in all parts of the House on matters to do with environment. Therefore, whenever a useful point has been made—and a great many very useful points have been made—I have said that we will consider it. I have accepted one or two Amendments as they stood, and the fact that I have not accepted more does not mean that they will not be looked at again. When I say that I will consider an Amendment I mean just that, and in many instances we shall bring back an Amendment of our own. I should have thought that was being conciliatory and I am sorry if it is not thought to be so.
LORD HUGHES: I did not say that the noble Baroness was not conciliatory. Perhaps the practice changes from one Government to another. When I was a Minister and had to deal with Amendments
1362
in Committee, I tried to see in advance what was intended so that I could decide whether to accept an Amendment. What the noble Baroness is doing, every time she says that she is prepared to consider an Amendment and, perhaps, to bring forward an alternative, is piling up a very big Report stage. Furthermore, some noble Lords, among them the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, have reserved the right to put down Amendments again at Report stage. This has already been a long Committee stage and it is not yet finished, and it will not be helpful to bring legislation of this kind before this House in the first instance, if we always find that a long Committee stage is to be followed by a very long Report stage.
There are times when a Minister must wait to hear what is said about an Amendment in order to understand the intention behind it, but it seems to me that the purpose of many of the Amendments, including ones which she is prepared to look at, has been absolutely clear. There has been no need to wait until the mover has spoken about it to know what he intends. I cannot believe that not one of the Amendments which the noble Baroness has considered looking at is not capable of being accepted in its present form. I do not wish to appear ungrateful because, as I said, the noble Baroness has been conciliatory, but it would be helpful to our proceedings if an Amendment could sometimes be accepted in the form in which it is moved. The Bill does not need to be absolutely perfect in its wording; otherwise, many of the things which are already in the Bill would not be there. Some of the language which the Government have been forced to use is not perfect but is the most reasonable in the circumstances, and the same can be said of some of the Amendments.
VISCOUNT AMORY: While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is very sweet to have one's Amendment accepted in the form in which it is moved, I sympathise very much with my noble friend about this extremely complicated Bill. I remember that when I was a Minister I sometimes accepted Amendments in the hope that all would be well with the drafting. But on one or two occasions which were painful to me—perhaps this never happened to the noble

1363
Lord, Lord Hughes—the Parliamentary draftsman said to me, " With profound respect, Minister, I understand why you accepted the principle of this Amendment, but I wish you had given me a chance of looking at the wording before you accepted it." So, in the long run, the fact that the Minister has adopted a more cautious approach may not add to the length of the Report stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there is a tendency in this House to have a more protracted Report stage than is customary in another place, and that is something for which we ought to watch out. But I do not wish to join in the rather severe, though very courteous, castigation which the noble Lord has inflicted on my noble friend.
LORD HUGHES: May I very briefly say that I did not intend a personal castigation of the noble Baroness. That would be most ungenerous of me. I was rather criticising the procedure which the Government have adopted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said will not discourage the noble Baroness from saying as frequently as she has done in the past during this Committee stage, that she will consider proposals put forward. It is a very useful practice to adopt. So seldom, in my experience, is any Amendment drafted by anyone except Parliamentary counsel which is acceptable to any Government of any colour, that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, if the noble Baroness accepted a great many of these Amendments she would be told that they contained all kinds of drafting errors, and probably language to which my noble friend Lord Conesford would object. Therefore, very often she is probably most wise to say what she has in fact said. Nevertheless, I think I am right in saying that if the noble Lord feels strongly that that undertaking to consider the matter is not sufficient, it is open to him and his noble friends, if they wish, to have a Division and to move the words into the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Amory has just said. I think it is very important that Ministers should not accept words without the fullest consideration
1364
and advice, and I think that applies particularly to a definition clause.
LORD MERRIVALE: I must say that I never thought that trying to insert the word " abandoned " into a Bill would lead to such a debate in your Lordships' House at Committee stage, but I am very glad indeed for this support. I am also delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, should have supported me by stressing the distinction to be made, which I think is so right, between abandoned and non-abandoned waste, because I think it is very important indeed that we should get this point right. In that respect, I think that my noble friend Lady Young is well seized of the necessity to insert something into the Bill so that any waste material which can be used for recycling purposes should not be confused with abandoned material. Therefore, with the assurance that she has given to me, and also the consideration that she has promised to give to Section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 131A:
Page 28, line 19, after ("home ") insert (" or an hotel, boarding house, guest house or a restaurant ").
The noble Lord said: On reading this Bill it was a surprise to the hotel and catering industry to find that their waste had been classified as commercial. That was something novel. Previously, it has been classified as house refuse, and not as trade refuse. I have put down this Amendment partly with an exploratory intention; to give the Government a chance to explain their reasons for making the change. I hope, too, that after hearing me they will feel that my arguments are convincing and that this will in fact give the noble Baroness a chance to please not only the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but others by accepting an Amendment which is extremely straightforward and extremely innocent, and which is framed in such language that I do not think that any official or any Parliamentary draftsman can object to it. But we are in the early stages of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, so if the noble Baroness feels that she cannot go as far as that I hope that at least she will say

1365
that she will consider it; and perhaps together with those interested her officials can try to frame words acceptable to everyone which we can put forward at a later stage.
There are two ways of classifying waste. You can classify it by its nature or you can classify it by its origin. Hotel waste, by long usage and by certain decisions of the court, has always been classed with household waste, and if noble Lords look, on page 28, at what is now subsection (3)(a), they will see that household waste is defined as,
" waste from a private dwelling or residential home ".
I should have thought that the waste from an hotel and the waste from a residential home was very much of the same nature, and that what the Government are trying to do is to find a distinction without, in fact, there being any real difference.
Under the Bill as drafted, this traditional way of classifying hotel waste has been changed, and I am asking the noble Baroness why this is so. Could it be just because hotels are run for profit? If that is so, so are some schools, and so are some nursing homes. From their charges, I should think that some nursing homes in London make a very considerable profit—much more profit, in fact, than hotels—and their waste is still to rank as household waste. Nursing home waste or hospital waste I should have thought came nearer in its nature to commercial waste than waste from an hotel, which is indistinguishable except in quantity from the waste from a private house. I should also like to ask my noble friend how waste from a block of flats with a restaurant on the ground floor is to be classified. Some years ago I lived in such a block of flats not very far from this building. Under the Bill, waste from the flats would rank as household waste and yet waste from the restaurant would rank as commercial waste; and they might well get mixed up and might either go down the same pipe or in fact get mixed up in the different bins which we were talking about earlier in this debate.
Then, again, there is the description " educational establishment ". In general, I suppose that would cover art galleries, and so far as an art gallery is a museum in the wide sense that we all understand it, then clearly it is an educational establishment. But if a picture dealer's shop
1366
in Bond Street has " Art Gallery " over its door—and I am not being personal in this; I have not been along Bond Street to see whether there are in fact any such shops, but in the art world some shops do refer to themselves as " galleries "—would such a shop benefit by having its waste classified as " household waste " and not as " commercial waste "? The definition of an educational establishment here, I would submit, is altogether too loose. Furthermore, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that, as a result of this change of reclassifying hotel waste, hotels will lose the concessions in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 which apply to household waste.
Now is this all a search for more revenue? It could, I admit, be important in an area with a highly-developed tourist industry, but if this change is made in isolation then hotels and restaurants will get the worst of both worlds. Under this Bill, they would have to pay charges, like commercial or industrial premises, for the disposal of their waste—and these charges are as yet unknown—and they will not attract such benefits as comparable depreciation allowances, which industrial premises attract. I would therefore submit that the Bill as drafted is patently unjust. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend has said, that hotel and restaurant waste has always been classed as household waste; it has never been classed as commercial waste. In fact, this was the decision of the High Court. The two leading cases which decided this, and which I have here (local authorities have always followed this ruling), are Westminster City Council v. Gordon Hotels in 1906 and J. Lyons & Company v. London Corporation in 1909. The decision in both those cases established that hotel and restaurant refuse was not commercial waste. In fact, the decision in these cases laid down that you define waste from its nature, not so much from its origin or the manner of its production. Hotels and restaurants have just the same sort of waste as households or homes, or residential property in general. They do not have any commercial waste, in the meaning of those judgments to which I have referred. As my noble friend says,

1367
we shall get into trouble here. If the Government are to assess household waste as commercial waste, if there is a profit involved, what will they do about a block of flats with a restaurant and a bar? You may as well say that if there is a block of flats without a restaurant or bar the flats are, presumably, run to make a profit. So I do not think the argument of the Government holds water. My noble friend mentioned schools, museums and art galleries. I do not think it is practicable to have hotel and restaurant waste described as anything else but household waste, and so I support the Amendment.
6.42 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I certainly do not want the Committee to think that because the Government included hotels, boarding-houses and guest houses in the commercial category they were in some way trying to get at the hotel and restaurant business. The first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was how the categories were arrived at. As I think I indicated on Second Reading, this Bill is based on a number of major Reports on the whole of the subject under discussion, and this particular part of it is based on the Browne Report, Refuse, Storage and Collection. The Report proposed this threefold definition of waste which was to be dealt with by local authorities. It was divided into household waste, trade or commercial waste and industrial waste, according to the kind of premises from which the waste originated. That is why there are these categories in the Bill.
The Government are aware that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association is concerned about what appears to be a change in policy, because previously local authorities gave one free collection a week to hotels and restaurants. If restaurants or hotels required a refuse collection every day—and of course big hotels and restaurants would require it—the local authority usually made a charge for the other collections. What we are discussing is not a complete change of policy but the abandonment of the one weekly free collection of refuse from hotels and restaurants. As I have indicated, the definitions show that, broadly speaking, domestic, public and charitable purposes fall into the category
1368
of household waste for which there is a free collection; and the commercial premises, including hotels, fall into the category for which a charge is made. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is a duty on the collecting authority on request to collect the waste, so that there is no question of restaurants or hotels being in difficulty about having their refuse collected.
The noble Lord raised the point about a block of flats with a restaurant and asked what a local authority would do in that case. It would have to decide how to tackle the problem. Strictly, under the terms of the Bill the authority could collect the refuse separately from the restaurant for which it could make a charge. But if it considered that this was quite unnecessary and would create a lot of work, the charge could, under the provisions of Clause 10(3), be waived. The noble Lord asked about art galleries which might sell a few pictures, and whether they were an educational establishment. We recognise that under these categories there could be some difficulty with borderline cases in deciding into which category they fell. We shall consult in detail with interested parties about such classifications with a view to making regulations under Clause 22(4) to sort out any anomalies of that kind which may arise. The provisions in the Bill are based on a Report which the Government have accepted, and they have given a special category to commercial premises which includes restaurants, catering establishments and hotels. We consider it fair in the context of the Bill that there should be a charge for the collection of their waste.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to ask the Minister about one matter. I am interested in the work of my local authority where we are embarking on an up-to-date system of refuse collection. If you try to separate restaurants and homes in the rural areas you will have some difficulty. Nearly every village has a village pub, where the publican lives with his family, and attached is a little restaurant. The publican is used to getting his refuse collected in the normal way, as though the premises were an ordinary home. I think the Government will stir up a great deal of complication about this. It is a simple matter to collect refuse if you have the necessary

1369
equipment. But to say that some refuse will be called home refuse and some restaurant refuse and boarding-house refuse, or whatever it is, will create an artificial division and the whole thing will become unnecessarily complicated. I beg the Government to look at this matter again. In big cities, where there are very large restaurants in which people do not live, a classification can be made. But all over the countryside you will find homes and small restaurants and lodging houses all mixed up together, and if you try to divide them the matter will become very complicated.
BARONESS YOUNG: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had to say and I am sure that she was referring to Scotland.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Yes.
BARONESS YOUNG: One of the objects of the provisions about waste in this Bill is that it will be the counties or (I think I am right in saying) in Scotland the districts, which are equivalent to the English counties, which will be responsible for drawing up the plans for waste disposal. Each plan and system will vary from district to district and from county to county. It is the object of the exercise to give the local authorities freedom. I do not see that this will be organised; it will be a question of sorting out the waste which is collected. It will be for the collection authority to decide what charges it will make for collecting refuse from commercial premises. How the authority levies the charge and what arrangement it comes to is up to the authority. Clearly, in the country districts arrangements may be completely different from those obtaining in the big cities, somewhere like London. So I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, will feel that we are not producing a set of arbitrary rules which would apply everywhere. It will be up to individual authorities to decide how this is done.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I am grateful to my noble friend for that information, and in particular for referring us to the Browne Report. I admit that I am not an expert on the Browne Report. I had hoped my noble friend would say that she would consider my Amendment.
1370
As she has not said it, I will say that what I intend to do is to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and hope the noble Baroness will send me a copy of the Browne Report. Then I shall study it and see what action, if any, I think it would be appropriate to take on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 28, line 28, after (" undertaking ") insert (", excluding waste from any mine or quarry ")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 132. Clause 22(3) provides definitions of household and commercial waste in relation to controlled waste under Part I of the Bill. Mine and quarry waste was intended to be excluded from the category of controlled waste, but the clause as drafted inadvertently left this category in the definition of industrial waste, and the Amendment will remove it from there. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 132C:
After Clause 22 at end insert the following new clause—
Responsibility of water authorities for the condition of inland waters
".—() In addition and without prejudice to the duties conferred on water authorities by or by virtue of Part II of the Water Act 1973 it shall be the duty of such authorities to ensure the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland water."
The noble Lord said: We have finished with the dustbins and now turn our attention to water. I shall speak very briefly on this Amendment. In Section 1(2)(c) of the Water Act, 1973 the responsibility given to the Secretary of State is
"…the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland waters ".
Part II of this Act, which refers to the functions of water authorities, does not put strictly enough on the water authority the same responsibility, that is—
"…the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland waters."

1371
I thought it might be the case that something had gone by default and I wished to give my noble friends and the Government the opportunity of including this responsibility if they thought it right to do so. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must say I do not quite understand the point of putting this in if it is already in the Water Act 1973, as it is imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to secure effective execution of so much of that policy as relates to " the restoration and maintenance of the wholesomeness of " inland and other waters. I think the noble Lord has drawn attention to a very serious point. The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, made the river boards responsible for the institution of prosecutions for offences under Section 2 of that Act. Indeed I think I am right in saying that prosecutions could only be instituted by river boards or by leave of the Attorney General. I am glad to know that in recent years the number of prosecutions has increased from a fairly small number to a fairly considerable number.
What strikes me as a very serious omission in this Bill—and it may be that this is the purpose for which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, put down this Amendment—is that it does not impose a duty on anyone to try to stop pollution. I know that you have the water authority and that the water authority has become the sewage disposal authority which is responsible for sewers, for all water and for effluent; and that the majority of its members are nominated by the local authorities. Up till now, local authorities have been among the worst offenders with regard to the pollution of water, yet here we have a Bill under which the water authority can assent to other people polluting streams (which is something we shall have to consider in some detail later); and it is a Bill which imposes no duty, so far as I can see, on any body to take steps to prevent pollution. I think that is a grave defect in this Bill. I understand from correspondence that I have seen that an assurance has been given that by tabling an Amendment an attempt will be made to remedy this defect. I believe that assurance was given a considerable time ago and I shall wait with interest to see
1372
its terms and, in particular, to see whether there is any sanction imposed for failure to perform the duty which I expect that Amendment will impose.
Coming back to this new clause—and of course this Amendment may be only a probing Amendment—I do not myself see that it will serve a very useful purpose, but I will join with the noble Lord if it is merely a probing Amendment and I hope that he will join with me in pressing very hard that the duty of preserving the purity of our streams should be positively imposed on these water authorities.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): I very much agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that whatever my noble friend's intentions may have been in seeking to import his Amendment at this point, it is not as effective at this point of the Bill as it is where the same words appear in the Water Act, 1973. It is largely from the duties, as set out there, that the positive responsibilities and duties of the water authorities derive. They are particularly effective at that point in the Water Act, 1973, because the duties in connection with restoring and maintaining the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland and coastal waters in areas of water authorities—these are the effective words—are linked with such things as the carrying out of a survey of water in their area, preparing an estimate of future demand for the use of water during the following 20 years and preparing a plan of action to be taken during that 20 years by them for the purpose of securing more efficient management of the water.
My first and superficial reaction to the words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is that the prosecutions would all form part of that more efficient management. I hope I have said enough to assure my noble friend who has moved this Amendment that, while my right honourable friend and I entirely agree with the objective he has in mind, we think the terms of his Amendment are better and more effective where they stand now in the Water Act of 1973, and that to seek to put them in here adds nothing effective, I hope he will not feel it necessary, in

1373
view of that assurance, to press the Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has to some extent voiced the uneasiness we felt, but in view of the assurance that has been given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I think this may be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage on this Bill until 8 o'clock and to resume the House in order to receive the Royal Assent and to continue with the other business on the Order Paper. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

ROYAL ASSENT
7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSIIAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Consolidated Fund Act.

RABIES BILL [H.L.]
TIIE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Proceedings for offences connected with importation
" . Without prejudice to section 80 of the principal Act (summary proceedings) an offence against that Act which is declared to be such by an order made under section 24 and expressed to be made for the purpose of preventing the introduction of rabies into Great Britain may be prosecuted on indictment; and a person convicted on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine or to both."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down because there was a good deal of discussion at the earlier stages of the Bill on the problems which are posed by the smuggling of animals which were subject to rabies control. It was generally accepted that people who deliberately attempt to bypass our quarantine controls offer the greatest risk that we have for the importation of rabies. We all share the view expressed in Corn-mince by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Beswick, that the penalties imposed by magistrates when such offenders were detected and prosecuted had generally been very low relative to the maximum possible fine of £400 and to the cost of quarantining an animal.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained that the only way of imposing higher penalties for particular types of offence that would be compatible with our general policy on penalties, was to make them optionally indictable. We undertook to consider whether this should be done and we concluded that it should be done. I hope therefore that the Amendment meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The affect of the Amendment, when orders have been made declaring the particular offences optional and indictable, will be to give prosecuting authorities a choice according to how serious they consider the offence to be. They will still be able to apply for summary trial before magistrates, but if they consider art offence to be particularly serious they will have the option of prosecuting on indictment. The defendant will then face trial by jury, and if he is convicted he may face a prison sentence of up to one year or an unlimited fine, or both, as compared with the maximum present penalty of £400.
There is one technical point: the terms of the Amendment will enable Ministers to distinguish between the more serious breaches of orders made under Section 24 of the Diseases of Animals Act, such as the deliberate smuggling of animals, and less serious offences where, for example, people land their animals without having obtained the necessary licence in advance but who nevertheless openly declare them to the Customs and Excise authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the views which they expressed so strongly. I hope that this Amendment will help to meet them. I

1375
am certain that it will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for moving this Amendment. We had very considerable feeling about this matter because this is a dangerous disease. We felt that we ought to deal with it in this way. I should like to record our thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his help in this direction. On two occasions when I was at the Ministry we had to deal with cases of this kind. We felt ourselves handicapped because of the limitation regarding the prosecution of the people concerned. We came to the conclusion that if people deliberately do this sort of thing they ought to be made to face up to their responsibilities. It was not efficacious if we fined them £20 for doing this. We thought that the fine ought to be much greater than that because this disease is a killer disease—do not let us pretend anything else. If we are to have an Amendment to the Act it ought to be substantial, and show our awareness of the dangers which could result from practices of this kind. We are grateful to the noble Earl for having done this, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself I want to thank him for having moved this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL, FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved that the Report be now received.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Restrictions on dumping in the sea]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, after ("satisfied") insert ("by the prosecution ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to try to remove what is possibly a slight uncertainty in the language of Clause 1(5). I submit that the Amendment is not without importance because one is dealing here with a criminal provision in the Bill. Clause I, subject to a number of qualifications, forbids dumping at sea. When one looks at Clause 1(4), one finds that dumping, contrary to Clause 1. is a serious criminal offence. Serious criminal penalties are provided, and I have no complaint about that. Obviously it is a matter which requires the courts to be invested with serious powers of punishment.
Then one looks at subsection (5), and one finds that it provides certain defences for a person who has been charged with the offence of dumping contrary to Clause 1 of the Bill. The defences are these: he is not to be found guilty if the dumped material in question is (and I quote from line 19):
" for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure or of saving life:"
Then in paragraph (b) it says that he is to give notice of what he has done, but this is not relevant for the immediate purpose of my Amendment. Then when one looks at line 26 one finds that a qualification, a very important one, is introduced by the words,
"unless the court is satisfied that the dumping was not necessary for any of the purposes mentioned above and was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances."
I propose to insert after the word " satisfied " the words " by the prosecution ". It is always of great importance to know on whom 'the onus rests of establishing facts which create a crime, or which afford a defence to the crime which has been created.
Let us suppose that it is shown that a person has dumped material at sea contrary to Clause 1 and he wishes to avail himself of the defence in question. What has he to do and what answers are there to that defence? If one is considering the matter of onus, I submit that the subsection should operate as follows: if it is shown by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the first place that the person charged has dumped material contrary to Clause 1, then that is a matter which has to be proved in the ordinary

1377
way beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Then the person charged, wishing to avail himself of the defence, should be in this position. The onus would be on him to show, not beyond a reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities, that he had dumped the materials, for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (5)—namely:
"the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, aircraft, hovercraft, or marine structure or of saving life".
If he could show that, he would have surmounted the first step of the building up of the defence of which he wished to avail himself. Then one asks: how is the qualification to operate? I submit that the qualification, in theory, between the Crown and the subject should operate in the following way. If the accused person has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that he dumped the material, for example, to save life, it then should be for the Crown to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in point of fact the dumping was not necessary, and that it was not a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
My Lords, I submit the following as the right approach. Somebody in charge of a ship dumps material. He says, "I did it because I was in extremis. I thought I had to do this to save life." It is hardly fair, supposing he is telling the truth, to seek to apply to him a very nice judgment as to whether he was acting reasonably and whether what he did was necessary to save life. He is at the time, after all, in a state of extremities, and has perhaps to form a quick judgment in a matter of a few seconds, and one cannot expect him to weigh up very accurately the conflicting considerations which might urge him either to dump or not to dump. My Lords, that is how he should be; that is the position in which he should find himself.
The Crown might wish to say to the man advancing that defence, "No doubt you are telling the truth when you say you dumped this material to save life, but your behaviour was utterly unreasonable; it was quite unnecessary to dump this material for the purpose to which you refer. You behaved in a panicky and quite unjustified manner. Nobody can really justify your action, dumping a whole lot of material at sea, because you acted in a moment of panic, without reflection,
1378
in the belief that that was the best thing to do to save life. It was not necessary, and it was not even reasonable." I submit that, faced with a situation of that kind, the Crown, ex post facto, looking at what took place in a moment of crisis when the accused person dumped the material, should, if it wished to defeat the defence (the first step of which he had erected), take upon itself to show, beyond any reasonable doubt, both that the dumping of the material was not necessary and also that it was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.
I submit that that is the way the subsection ought to work if one wants to deal justice between the Crown and the subject. I know that the House will agree with me at once when I say that it is of the greatest importance that the wording of the subsection should make it clear whether or not it does work in that way. I should have thought, if I may respectfully say so, that something very like the wording that has been chosen, namely, "unless the court is satisfied", would produce that result. But it is not so. In my submission it does leave room for some uncertainty as to the precise effect of the subsection. Therefore, in order to remove that slight doubt, and to make it perfectly clear to the subject where he stands in the face of the criminal law of this country, I seek to insert, after "satisfied", the words, "by the prosecution", in order to make it clear beyond any controversy that if the Crown wish to defeat the defence, the first step of which has been erected, the Crown must show beyond any reasonable doubt that what was done by the accused person was neither necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances in which the accused acted.
My Lords, it is for that purpose, and for that purpose only, that I seek to insert these words. If the noble Earl feels that I have indicated at any rate some doubt, I hope he will be able to say that he will consider, with his advisers, whether my words would improve the wording of the subsection and whether it is not desirable, in the interests of achieving certainty, to insert either those words or some words like them. Possibly to achieve complete certainty one should insert the words, "unless the court is satisfied by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt." However, I think that those last words are not in fact necessary, and that

1379
the result for which I contend will be achieved by the insertion simply of the words, "by the prosecution." It is those words which I seek to insert by this Amendment. I beg to move.
7.16 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for explaining his Amendment and the purpose behind it. Any remarks that I may have to make. I will make with due deference to the noble and learned Lord's ability and knowledge of the law courts and its procedures. He is of course quite right when he says that the Bill is designed to prevent dumping unless there are certain qualifications to permit it; in other words, unless there is a licence. The noble and learned Lord is also quite right when he says that subsection (4) lays down the penalties to which a person who dumps erroneously may be subjected. Subsection (5) then goes on to say that it is a defence to dump for various reasons—and the noble and learned Lord gave the reasons, such as if one's ship is in extremis, or if there is danger to life. It is up to the authorities to prosecute a person for having dumped illegally, and it is up to the person accused of dumping to show that in fact he has a defence under subsection (5) and that he was in fact dumping because he had no other option, because his ship was in danger or lives were in danger.
My Lords, if in fact he does that, then of course the court will acquit him. But I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the only reason, the court would not accept the defence would be if the prosecutor turned round and said, "Ah; but for this, that, or the other reason, it is my submission that the dumper has not shown that he has got a case under subsection (5)." In those circumstances the court may come down against the dumper. But of course it will be up to the prosecutor to make his case against the accused. I would have thought, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, that it is almost axiomatic that it must be the prosecutor who would have to show that the case which the accused was trying to make out was not in fact satisfactory. I should have thought that the inclusion of the words which the noble and learned Lord has suggested was unnecessary because it will be
1380
up to the prosecuting counsel to show that the accused has not made his case.
But, having said that, I will look at the point which the noble and learned Lord has explained so carefully, and if what I have said is wrong, insufficient or inadequate, or should be altered in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I will certainly write to him about it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. If he will be so kind as to consider the language, I shall be amply content. Having thanked him. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
7.21 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
("Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits dumping within United Kingdom waters before issuing it the licensing authority shall obtain the agreement of any relevant regional water authority or of the Welsh National Water Development Authority as the case may be.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. My reason for putting it down is that it seems to me there can be some confusion in the responsibility between the authorities covered in the Bill which is now before us and the authorities covered in the Bill which was before us until 20 minutes ago and will be before us very soon hereafter.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness will be speaking to Amendment No. 3 together with this Amendment? Will she move No. 3 separately and speak to it separately?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I thought they should at any rate be put down as separate Amendments. If it is for the convenience of the House I will take them separately because they deal with separate points. The short point in Amendment No. 2 is that should a licence be granted under the Dumping at Sea Bill for the deposit of any substance or article in United Kingdom waters (which is provided for in Clause 1(1)(a)), then we shall have two different authorities controlling the condition of our waters, which include

1381
the tidal estuaries as well as the territorial waters of the coastline. This seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory.
I am certain that the answer I shall receive from the Minister is that of course the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, is unlikely to grant any licences for dumping within United Kingdom waters of any substance which might be detrimental. That I entirely accept. The point is that legally they would be entitled so to do. Therefore, one has the situation potentially arising with the two Bills which are in front of your Lordships' House tonight that we shall have the responsibility placed upon the water authorities, or in Wales the Welsh National Water Development Authority, to control the quality of water, including the tidal estuaries, but there is no obligation of the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to obtain their agreement as to what might be dumped in these waters. This seems to me to lead to a position where we have two authorities, both in a position to sanction dumping of effluent in the same water, but neither having any obligation to consult with the other. It seems to me that the obligation to obtain the consent of the water authority should rest with the authority in charge of the dumping at sea, because the number of occasions on which licences will be granted in these circumstances will probably be small and therefore the sensible course is ask the authority in charge of the smaller number of transactions to obtain the agreement of the authority which will be primarily in charge of the quality of these waters.
I cannot think that the situation as it now stands is satisfactory. Noble Lords who have been working on the Protection of the Environment Bill will appreciate that under Clause 24(3) of that Bill, the Dumping at Sea Bill (which is already called an Act, I may say, which slightly shocked me) will take precedence over the Protection of the Environment Bill. Therefore, the water authority would be absolutely helpless if permission were given to dump within territorial waters. It would have no redress that I can see, because in the Protection of the Environment Bill it is made perfectly plain that subsection (1) of Clause 24, which deals
1382
with discharges into rivers and coastal waters,
"shall not apply to any discharge which is from a vessel or is authorised by virtue of any provision of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974".
I think I have made the point quite clearly. I repeat that if the Minister's answer is that it will not happen, then I am sorry to say that that is not the way one has to legislate, because it might.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her Amendment. I understand her concern that the water authorities should be consulted, because the Water Act has established major new authorities which have extremely important powers, including the powers which are proposed under the other Bill which is in front of your Lordships' House to which the noble Baroness referred. The powers in that Bill will be exercised in rivers, streams, estuaries and in coastal waters where discharges emanate from the shore; that is, through pipe-lines. On the other hand, this Bill provides for the exercise of quite distinct functions for a different set of authorities who have the essential scientific expertise to maintain oversight of control of—this is important—marine pollution. I absolutely accept the need for an integrated approach to the control of marine pollution, but one reaches the point where a decision has to be made as to who is to exercise the executive responsibility for any given function. Because close co-ordination in some circumstances is necessary—and I accept that it is—that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that statutory provisions have to be made in each case for agreement to be given by another set of authorities.
What I suggest is required is not so much statutory provisions but a flexible administrative arrangement which can be agreed between all concerned to ensure that everybody knows exactly what is going on so far as they are affected. I can assure your Lordships that considerable thought was given to exactly how these arrangements should be made to work. On this basis, where a dumping took place within a defined area—near the coast, for instance—the neighbouring water authority would of course be kept in the picture. I am naturally aware that the Protection of the Environment Bill, which is before your Lordships'

1383
House, has different provisions. However, this Bill provides that the licensing authority, which is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be enabled to give licences for dumping of various commodities. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that where this takes place within an area which is within the definition of a water authority, of course these people will be consulted and taken into account before the licence is ever issued. I can understand the noble Baroness's concern that water authorities should not find themselves ridden roughshod over. I do not believe there is any chance of that, because a licence will be issued in those cases where water authorities are concerned only after consultation with them. In the end the protection of the marine environment must be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture because they are the people who have the scientific knowledge about it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, the river authorities have, too, and the water authorities are being made the authorities responsible for everything other than dumping licensed by the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill. It is the river authorities—I use the wrong expression because under the new legislation it will be the "water authorities" who take over in April. It is they who will be responsible for the quality of the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters. The responsibilities and expertise of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which extend very largely to fish—that is their reason for being the Department concerned as opposed to the Department of the Environment—lie far more outside the territorial waters in the habitats of fish. What happens within the territorial waters and particularly in the great tidal estuaries like the Thames and the Humber, will be the responsibility of the water authorities. Therefore simply to say, "Of course, we do not need to bother to legislate for this", seems to me to be getting the priorities in these particular water areas quite out of perspective.
I am not speaking of the deep waters of the oceans; that is another matter. It seems to me that it is quite wrong to pass legislation to give the major responsibility—and the noble Earl cannot deny
1384
that the major responsibility for the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters will be so given—to the water authorities. There is no obligation whatsoever in the Dumping at Sea Bill for this consultation. The Minister says, "Of course it will happen". But, my Lords, it does not always happen and consultations between rival authorities, each of them having responsibility for the same water, do not always occur. The Ministries themselves are not necessarily very closely in communication on some of these matters. Still less are the local organisations necessarily closely in communication.
The Minister could have said that perhaps the Amendment is going a little far in saying that they must obtain agreement, but the least he should have said was that he would accept an Amendment which provided for obligatory consultation. I do not think that the number of occasions on which consent will be given for dumping in territorial waters and tidal estuaries under the Dumping at Sea Bill will be large. I should be surprised if it were. But I am informed that there are occasions even now where matter is dumped in the estuaries and where at present the river authorities have no knowledge of it. They are not consulted—they have no statutory right to be consulted—they have no locus standi. Possibly they can make complaints after the event but that is not a very sensible way of doing things; I am sure that the Minister will agree. Therefore, although I am prepared in the circumstances to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, I give notice that I shall put down another Amendment at Third Reading which will provide for statutory consultations.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that I was rather surprised at the answer which he gave to the noble Baroness. He will recall the Committee stage, when we were discussing a similar problem about people who had to get permission from the Department of Trade and Industry as well as licences under this Bill, and I thought that the answer given then was, "Of course, if people have to get permission from some other body they have to get licences none the less". I do not see why the same should not apply to people who have to get permission from the water authorities. They

1385
have to get permission from them and also a licence from the licensing authority under this Bill. As I understand it, the noble Earl is now saying that the licensing authority will override the water authority, and that is the noble Baroness's difficulty. But why should not the position be the same as in the case of the people who have to get two licences, one from the licensing authority and one from the Department of Trade and Industry?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to reply? This is not a Committee stage and one should not speak twice but may I have the leave of the House to clear up two points? With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it is a fact that the need to get a licence under this Bill does not supersede the need to get any other licence which would have been required other than for this Bill. In other words, where there is an obligation to get a licence from the Department of Trade and Industry for the functions for which that Department is responsible, the need to get a licence under this Bill does not detract from the need to get a licence from the other Department. I think that that is slightly different from what the Amendment of the noble Baroness seeks which is that it should be statutorily put into the Bill that there should be consultation with the water authorities to ensure that they should be consulted over anything that is put within their territorial waters. The noble Baroness said, and quite rightly so, that not much would be placed within their territorial waters, but the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the control of pollution of the marine environment, and particularly in territorial waters where fish are of very great importance.
Water authorities do not have this responsibility over fish. The Ministry of Agriculture has the competence and expertise to know what type of things will pollute the water, to know what is likely to flow where and what the tides and currents do. That is the reason they have the particular expertise which is necessary to issue a licence to dump. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question that there would not be consultation, but I would say to her that if this is to be put into the Bill where are we
1386
going to stop? Why should it be only water authorities which should be consulted? What about the Sea Fisheries Committee or the harbour authorities or the Crown Estates Commissioners, all of whom have in various areas responsibilities for water contiguous to the shore? Once one starts to say that one shall consult with one specific body that automatically infers that one does not necessarily have to consult with another body.
The least that I can do is to look again at what the noble Baroness has said, and I shall do so and look at the points that she has made. But it is my belief at the moment that it is correct that this particular licence should be issued by the licensing authority and I can only repeat the assurance which I have given to the noble Baroness, that it will of course be done in consultation with those authorities which are the appropriate ones to be consulted in the nature of each specific licence.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend and give him an argument which he has not used; that is, that it should be the Ministry of Agriculture's responsibility. Undoubtedly there will be, in the next ten years or so, a great extension of fish farming in the sea and that extension must be protected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, the question of any pollution of the sea will loom very large in their sphere of influence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.40 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" () Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits the discharge of any trade effluent or sewage from land in Great Britain through a pipe in the sea outside controlled waters, the licensing authority shall satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a great pity that this is not the Committee stage as then I should have been able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Balerno.
Amendment No. 3 makes a somewhat different, though cognate point. This also refers to Clause 24(1)(a)(ii) of the Protection of the Environment Bill. Clause

1387
24(3) again takes out of the jurisdiction of the water authorities the discharge of—
"any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters …"
As I understand it, under the Dumping at Sea Bill that would come under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. Thus, the point at which this discharge took place, which would be in waters outside the territorial waters, would have to be controlled by them. This is referred to in Clause 1(2) of the Dumping at Sea Bill:
"… a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."
At an earlier stage in our deliberations on this Bill I recall this was taken to include, for example, sewage sludge. It appears to me to be unsatisfactory that the authority which would normally be controlling effluent at one end of the pipe should not necessarily be consulted by the authority which controls the effluent at the other end of the pipe. Under the Protection of the Environment Bill it might be quite undesirable from the point of view of the authority that such sewage or trade effluent should be disposed of in this way at all. It may have quite different ideas as to what ought to be done with it, particularly in an age when reclamation and re-cycling, and the processing of sewage and other matter, is likely to become more and more important and our knowledge of the processes for dealing with it is likely to become more advanced and sophisticated.
Therefore it appears to me to be desirable that if we are to have these pipes for the disposal of sewage or trade effluent—and I am told that in the United States, for example, some of them extend for eight or ten miles into the sea—then we should make sure that the authorities at the two ends should each have their own responsibility. I do not see how the landward authority, so to speak, can exercise responsibility unless it grants a licence for its end of the discharge, leaving the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to exercise its jurisdiction about the disposal of the matter into the waters of the sea. This Amendment therefore suggests that where, in the Dumping at Sea Bill, the
1388
licence is granted which permits the discharge of
"any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters …"
the licensing authority concerned should satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority which would be responsible for land or for any discharge of this type of matter into waters other than the sea.
If this Amendment does not appeal to the Minister I should like to know how he would deal with this situation. It appears to me that one Department and one set of draftsmen have dealt with one Bill and others have dealt with the other Bill; thus there are these essential discrepancies between the two. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is going to intervene, but I know that he has been in consultation with the C.B.I. on this matter and I know that they among other people are very much disturbed about this position. Therefore it seems incumbent upon us to attempt to meet the situation. I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: I think this Amendment justifies certain fears that this Bill could be taken to cover effluent discharged by a pipeline to the sea. Clause 24(1), to which the noble Baroness referred—and I should like to include it for the Record—reads:
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section a person shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits—(a) any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters … unless the discharge is made with the consent in pursuance of section 27 of this Act of the water authority in whose area the discharge occurs …".
A copy of the application for consent by the water authority must be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Clause 29(1).
BARONESS WHITE: Would the noble Lord forgive me a moment? The Government are moving an Amendment to delete that.
LORD MERRIVALE: That is even worse. The point I am making is that I would have thought it preferable for this question of the discharge of effluent by pipeline to be covered solely by the Protection of the Environment Bill and not by the Bill which we are considering now.

1389
Before the Government move any Amendment, when this application for consent is sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry then has the right to make representations about it. This arrangement of control by a single authority and a requirement to consult the Ministry is, I would have thought, totally satisfactory and should work well in practice. I would also think it undesirable for a person discharging effluent by pipeline into controlled waters or beyond those controlled waters to need to obtain both the licence from the Ministry and also the consent of the water authority. Dual responsibility for controlling such discharges would surely lead to unnecessary duplication of effort and possibly to some friction between the authorities concerned.
Bearing in mind the wording of the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, would my noble friend consider amending this Bill? From what the noble Baroness has just said, I have a horrible feeling that the Government would not, but it seems to me to be preferable that this question of controlling the discharge of effluent through pipelines, particularly outside controlled waters, should be covered by the Protection of the Environment Bill, as, in effect, laid down in Part II of that Act. I can only express great disquiet if what the noble Baroness says is true, that the Government are proposing to bring in under this Bill the question of trade effluents discharged through a pipeline rather than under the Protection of the Environment Bill.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to comfort both the noble Baroness and my noble friend, because I think they are under a misapprehension, although possibly an understandable one. All pipelines and what they discharge, and all licences to deal with pipelines, come under the Protection of the Environment Bill and not under this Bill. I think possibly one of the reasons why both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Merrivale were a little concerned is because subsection (2) says that
"ߪ substances and articles are dumped in the sea for the purposes of this Act if they are permanently deposited in the sea from a vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure, or from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."
1390
What emanates from a pipeline is not a solid, and the licensing authorities for pipelines are the water authorities. It does not come under this Bill at all and therefore I hope the noble Baroness will be content that all pipeline licensing comes under the Protection of the Environment Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Right to make representations]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and shall send him a copy of the committee's report").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an applicant for a licence or a licence holder to make representations to the licensing authority about proposed decisions on licensing for dumping. The Minister can refer such matters to a committee which will hear the representations and report to him. The Minister has then to advise the person or the company making representations of his (the Minister's) decision, giving his reasons. This procedure has been developed with the help and advice of the Council on Tribunals. Since the Committee stage we have reviewed how the procedure would operate. In the light of further consultations with those who might be affected, the Government have concluded that the person making representations should have a copy of the report of the proceedings and the advice of the committee to the Minister, who will be able to refer directly to it in giving the reasons for his decision. This is in accordance with the practice recommended by the Council on Tribunals and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment as an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Publicity
".—(1) A licensing authority shall compile and keep available for public inspection free of charge at reasonable hours the notifiable particulars of any dumping licensed

1391
by them under this Act, and shall furnish a copy of any such notifiable particulars to any person on payment of such reasonable sum as the authority may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
(2) In subsection (1) above "notifiable particulars" means particulars which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are required to notify to the international organisation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we might speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 10 together. The noble Baroness will remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill she inquired whether a register of licences would be kept which would be open to inspection. The noble Baroness was concerned that local authorities and scientists should be able to establish the nature and the quantities of materials that were being dumped from the United Kingdom. I said at the time that we recognised that the public was entitled to have such information.
As signatories to the London and Oslo Conventions, the Government have accepted an obligation to notify to the Commissions set up to implement the Convene Lions, particulars relating to licences issued, and we believe it right that the public should have access to this information. This is the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much and say that I am happy with the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enforcement of Act]:
7.53 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 26, after ("Kingdom") insert ("or in United Kingdom waters").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the point about this Amendment is that in the Bill as it now stands we have a definition of the places and things which are liable to inspection under this Bill, and under Clause 4(5)(b) these include ships in ports in the United Kingdom—that is to say, ships of any nationality, our own or other ships, provided they are in the port. But we have no authority to inspect such ships once they have left the port, even though they may be still in our territorial waters, which might include a tidal estuary. Therefore it seems
1392
to me that there is a gap in this legislation, and I have had representations made to me about this. It would surely be much more satisfactory if we were able to inspect a ship if it was in a tidal estuary, because it might very much affect the conditions in our own waters if such a ship was believed to be polluting the water, though apparently as the Bill stands we have no right to do anything about it.
If I am incorrect in this supposition in regard to the provision of Clause 4(5)(b), and this does not in fact detract from some other authority, some other legislation that would enable us to inspect a ship to see whether or not it was polluting our waters, then of course that would be perfectly satisfactory. But reading the Bill, and having had representations made to me about this, it seems to me that we ought to make quite certain we do not put ourselves into a position in which we might suffer damage and have no redress. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to an important point in this Amendment, and I would tell her that before the Bill was drafted we gave the most careful consideration as to what powers were appropriate for our inspectors in the supervision of their licensing arrangements which were to be made under the Bill. Obviously, a balance has to be struck. On the one hand, we have to ensure that the powers in Clause 4 are adequate for a British enforcement officer, who has reasonable cause to believe that substances are present, to inspect a vessel; on the other hand, we do not wish to provide stronger arrangements than are necessary, particularly having regard to the international repercussions which the conferment of over-weighty powers could have on our shipping interests. I suggest that this is very important.
Clause 4 provides for the appointment of British enforcement officers and gives them routine powers of inspection. They will be able to board British and foreign ships in our ports where there is reasonable cause to believe that a vessel has been loaded for dumping or has returned from dumping. These arrangements will enable licensing authorities to exercise general oversight over wastes which are loaded in this country. As the clause makes quite clear, British enforcement

1393
officers will have power to inspect British ships at sea, wherever they are. As the noble Baroness has made clear, her Amendment would give them power to inspect foreign vessels in United Kingdom waters. I believe that it would be quite wrong to embark on an extension of arrangements which are regarded as normal under international law as it exists and I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness might have this effect. It would be entirely inappropriate to confer on inspectors powers to permit them to board and to inspect foreign vessels which are at sea, albeit within our own territorial waters.
It might be helpful if one were to consider this a little further. The essential point, it seems, is that it is extremely unlikely that a vessel of any other State which intended to undertake dumping would in fact enter our territorial waters to do so without a licence, since it would obviously be much easier and cheaper for it to dispose of its waste on the high seas. Therefore I suggest that the situation would be unlikely to arise. Another factor that has weighed heavily with us in considering what powers will be appropriate is that the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone gives a ship the right of innocent passage for the purpose of transit through the territorial sea. I am advised that a passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State. Clearly, if a ship came into territorial waters to dump a whole lot of noxious substances within those territorial waters it would be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State.
I believe that it is not necessary to take powers in this Bill to inspect foreign ships passing through our waters because, as I have said, the international repercussions of such a thing would clearly be undesirable. I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness that while I understand the reasoning behind her argument, the balance lies on the side that we should not put these powers into the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I do not profess enough knowledge to argue against the noble Earl. Nevertheless, I rather hope that this might be looked at when it reaches another place. Mean-
1394
while, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("it to stop") and insert ("the person in charge to stop it").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is basically a drafting Amendment on a point to which the noble Baroness drew attention in Committee. The basis of it is that one cannot order a ship to stop; one has to order the person in charge of the ship to stop it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offences—general provisions]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 8, after ("again") insert ("and punished").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is basically a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording of the clause into line with precedent and makes it clear that a responsible person in a body corporate who has been found guilty of being party to an offence is liable to be punished. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial provisions]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("the") to end of line 10 and insert ("international organisations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. When I moved Amendment No. 5 I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 10, which is the next Amendment to be called. This defines international organisations, and therefore it is unnecessary to have the explanation in this part of the Bill; hence the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is consequential on Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, at end insert—
(" " international organisations" means any organisation established in pursuance of Article XIV of the London Convention or Article 16 of the Oslo Convention and any similar organisation established in pursuance of a designated Convention; ").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is also a drafting Amendment, to insert the revised title of the Department responsible for licensing of dumping in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("Ministry of Development") and insert ("Department of the Environment").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 8.4 p.m. and resumed at 8.20 p.m.]

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 23 [Control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters etc.]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("specified").
The noble Baroness said: This seems to me to be an Amendment of some significance. It is a complicated one, but I hope that I shall be able to make it reasonably clear. The Amendment is to leave out the word "specified" in Clause 23(1)(a) where it refers to " any specified underground water ". The reason why we are worried about this provision will I think become clear to anyone who looks at the Water Resources Act 1963, Section 72. This section stands to be repealed under this Bill, and it was a much wider one because, instead of referring to "specified underground water" it referred to "any underground strata" within a river authority's area, and it was a function of the river authorities—which are now, of course, to be replaced by the water authorities—to control trade or sewage effluent
1396
and other poisonous polluting matter and so forth which might find its way into "any underground strata". This point was touched on at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Because of his responsibilities as Chairman of the Water Council he feels perhaps a little inhibited in taking part in the detailed stages of our debates, but he expressed some apprehension that the narrowing of this reference in Part II of the Bill before us might have some unfortunate effects.
One cannot, I think, understand what is meant by "specified underground water" unless one looks at Clause 48, the Interpretation Clause, which tells us what exactly is meant by this term. Your Lordships will see that "specified underground water" means underground water specified in,
"(a) a report prepared by a water authority in pursuance of section 24 of the Water Act 1973".
I have looked at that section and it does not seem to help us very much, it refers to periodical reviews plans and programmes. Then the definition goes on:
"(b) a report prepared in pursuance of section 14(1)(a) of the Water Resources Act 1963 …"
That also does not seem to get us very much further. Then it proceeds,
"water which is used"
and there is to be an Amendment which will make it read:
"or is or was expected by the authority to be used for any purpose".
In other words, if an authority, in its wisdom, is not able to think of any pur pose for which the water might be used, then we have no control over the noxious and polluting matter which might get into it. Oddly enough, so far as Scotland is concerned (again I have to look forward to Amendments which are about to be made) at the top of page 57 one sees that in Scotland "specified underground water" is going to mean, when the appropriate Government Amendment has been made, "such underground water as may be prescribed". So one will not be obliged to signify any purpose for which it is going to be used; one has only to prescribe it. I am not sure what the criteria for prescription will be.
This is very far from being a simple matter. The reason why we are so concerned about it is that we have grave

1397
doubts as to whether at any one point of time it will be possible to indicate for what purpose underground water might be used. We do not know all that much about underground water. In some areas there is considerable knowledge and it has been carefully investigated, but there are other are as which were covered, as I understand it, when one was referring to "any underground strata" in Section 72 of the 1963 Water Resources Act, so that one was taking no chances. Anything which might get into any underground strata would be controlled. Now we say, "If you are going to discharge it into underground water which has been specified according to the definition clause then you have to get the necessary consents and so forth; but if it has nor been specified, and if the authority has not thought of any use to which it might be put, then it is not specified, and you can do what you like without any control and without any let or hindrance."
I am advised by those who are much more knowledgeable than I that there are undoubtedly areas with underground water which have not been fully explored or recorded, where one simply does not know, where noxious matter might find its way; and therefore it is dangerous to go back on the 1963 Act and legislate now for much more restricted conditions. It may well be that there have been difficulties over the administration of Section 72 and the immediate following Sections of the 1963 Act. If so, I think we should be told exactly what the difficulties have proved to be.
This section in the 1963 Act is to be repealed under the Bill and will have no further effect. We are substituting something which is less wide. We are substituting something which, I am advised, because it is not fully inclusive could lead to very serious difficulties in the future. This again to some extent ties up with my South Wales mining connections. I know that the scientists who are working in the South Wales coalfield area have very grave apprehensions as to the possible effects. This applies not only in South Wales but in other parts of Wales, and I have no doubt it applies equally to parts of England, but I am not very well aware of those. This again links up with what we were discussing earlier, the disposal of specially toxic wastes the effects of which are not fully
1398
known, and the desire on the part of the authorities to use abandoned mines or quarries in order to dispose of them. So often in these abandoned workings are underground waters which may go in directions which may change in the course of time, and which may not be fully known. So I feel we are entirely justified in moving this Amendment. Whether we press it or not depends partly, of course, on the explanation we have from the Government as to why they now wish to take narrower powers than were included in the 1963 Act, what difficulties have been encountered in administering that Act, and why in fact they propose to make this change. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The Committee will be grateful, as I am, to the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to explain what was in my right honourable friend's mind in regard to the present wording. I would be the first to admit that this is wording which we hope it will be possible to improve upon, but perhaps not in the way the noble Baroness suggests. She is quite right in referring to Section 24 of the Water Act 1973, and Section 14 of the Water Resources Act 1963, to get at the meaning of "specified underground water". I cannot agree that the 1963 Act is wider than the present Bill. The 1963 Act related only to discharges by way of well, borehole, or pipe into underground strata. All those discharges will now be controlled under Clause 24(1)(a)(iii). Furthermore, that particular clause has been strengthened as indicated on page 102 of the Bill, where there is a requirement that the relevant material should be publicised and made available for inspection. That is rather a side issue.
Perhaps I could deal with this matter in two ways. First, may I indicate why the simple omission of the word "specified" cannot be accepted. If you omitted this word, it would be an offence to add fertiliser to an allotment in such way that it got into, and polluted the water which had fallen as rain, or a shower, a few hours before and had soaked through into the ground. It would make it an offence to permit polluting matter to enter any underground water, even though the water concerned was already in such a state, as for instance crude brine, as to make is unusable. It would expose everybody

1399
to the danger of prosecution for the pollution of underground water, without providing any means of enabling them to discover whether there was underground water under, or anywhere near, their property.
Those are some of the difficulties in accepting this Amendment as it stands. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend would be the first to admit that the qualification "specified", as defined in Clause 48 of the Bill and in the references that the noble Baroness mentioned and that I confirmed, still leaves something to be desired. For instance, it will be a year or two before the new water authorities will have completed their first surveys under Section 24(1)(a) of the Water Act 1973. The surveys under Section 14 of the Water Resources Act 1963 were not carried out with the purposes of this Bill in mind; on that the noble Baroness is quite right. In consequence, this Bill will initially probably provide rather less complete coverage than we should have liked. The noble Baroness is quite right there. But a comprehensive approach to the protection of underground water of the kind which we intend—broadly, underground sources which are already used, or for which some future use can be foreseen—is an entirely new feature in the protection of water. It is a large step forward, and we can only use the best method available to ensure that it does not have unintended and repressive effects.
It will be in the interests of the water authorities in their dual role as controllers of water pollution and providers of water resources—or rather, in their single role as the comprehensive managers of the whole water cycle—to ensure, as soon as may be, that all the useful underground water is identified and specified in reports of surveys. I hope that the Committee will agree that it follows from what I have said that the Government will be prepared to consider what the noble Baroness has said, and to consider any other suggestions that might be forthcoming between now and the next stage, for a more satisfactory definition of the underground water to be the subject of the general offence in Clause 23(1)(a).
I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the Committee that just to leave the term entirely unqualified would, for
1400
the reasons I have given, not be an acceptable solution. I hope that that will satisfy the Committee for the time being, and will encourage the noble Baroness and other Members of your Lordships' House to assist us to improve on what I admit is not an entirely satisfactory situation at the moment.
8.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has put her finger on a problem which this Bill at the present moment does not satisfactorily solve. I could not support her if she were to press this Amendment now, because I think the noble Lord has made it clear that there are good reasons for having some limitation and not leaving it as an offence to discharge "any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter" into any underground water without any limitation.
The real trouble is the definition in Clause 48. That does not give a free hand to the Secretary of State. It is a limiting definition. There have to be reports either under the 1973 Act or the 1963 Act (and a report of which a copy is kept available if it is under the 1963 Act), before any underground water can be treated as "specified underground water". I must say that I cannot see the object of having such a restrictive definition. I think it would be much better if you had, "underground water prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State", for this reason. Pressure could then be applied to the Government of the day if they over-prescribed or if they under-prescribed, and you would not have to wait to obtain one or other report from a body before you could bring that particular underground water within the purview of Clause 23 and have it protected from pollution.
I think one can leave this part of the clause as it now stands. The real trouble arises with the definition in Clause 48. This debate may perhaps serve a useful purpose, because if an Amendment is put down on the lines which I have suggested, and it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a joint effort on our part might get the Government to accept it when we get to Clause 48 and they will not just say that they will think about it.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Viscount must be reading my mind. It was in my

1401
mind to get up immediately he sat down; not on this aspect, but on the Scottish aspect. If he will look at the Amendment which the Government propose to make to the Scottish definition of underground water, this certainly will not be giving a wider discretion to the Secretary of State than what is proposed in Scotland. As my noble friend pointed out, the definition in Clause 48 for Scotland at the top of page 57 paragraph (b) reads:
"for the definition of 'specified underground water' there shall be substituted the following definition—
'specified underground water' means underground water specified in regulations as water which is used or expected by the Secretary of State to be used for any purpose."
That is little wider than the English definition. The Amendment, which reads rather ridiculously but could certainly not be wider, is to alter that to,
"'specified underground water' means such underground water as may be prescribed".
So far as I can see, taking an ordinary reading of English, this simply means that specified underground water is such water as may be specified.
If it is accepted that there is sound reason for making this the definition in Scotland, then a somewhat similar definition in England would meet the purpose of the noble and learned Viscount. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that when the Government are looking at this point they should look at the reasoning which they found acceptable in the case of Scotland, and consider whether it is equally acceptable on this side of the Border.
BARONESS WHITE: I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, as well as to the Minister. I am in no way wedded to this Amendment, the purpose of which was to draw attention to what we thought was a significant problem, so I have no intention of pressing it. But I would respectfully agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that this point can probably best be dealt with when we come to the definition clause. It is very odd that there should be a discrepancy between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, which is not so much a legal question as a matter of common sense. In
1402
all the circumstances, we should leave the matter as it is for the moment, but ask the Government to look closely at this serious problem. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 29, line 24, at end insert ("and for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a local authority shall be deemed to cause or knowingly permit to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter which passes into any stream or controlled waters from any sewer or sewage disposal works vested in them, in any case where either the local authority were bound to receive the matter into the sewer or sewage disposal works, or they consented to do so unconditionally, or they consented to do so subject to conditions and those conditions were observed.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 23 deserves very careful study, as I am sure the whole Committee will agree, and I do not profess to have spent as much time in considering it as I should have liked. But I have contrasted it with Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 on which it is modelled, and I can say straight away that this Amendment is modelled on a provision in that section. In Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, there is a provision which specifies certain circumstances in which a local authority is to be deemed to cause or knowingly to permit pollution. It is a deeming provision, and a not unimportant deeming provision, putting a burden on local authorities who were, I am sorry to say, over the years some of the worst sources of pollution, with the no doubt desirable objective of saving their ratepayers a good deal of money. But that is the fact and one must not disguise it.
The circumstances in which pollution could be deemed to be a local authority's responsibility were where a local authority were bound to receive polluting matter into their sewer or sewage disposal plants, or where they had consented to receive it. They would then be deemed to have caused the pollution by that polluting liquid escaping into a river from their sewage works or sewer, or knowingly to have permitted it. So where those facts could be proved, and subject to no defence succeeding, a conviction would result. That had the

1403
advantage that a local authority could not say, if polluting liquid was traced to their plant "We are not responsible. We did not cause it. We cannot be convicted. You must find the people who tipped that polluting matter into our sewer, and if you can trace them you can go for them." Section 2 overcame that difficulty and it was an important provision in the 1951 Act. Clause 23 does not contain any similar provision.
I know—although I cannot claim to be very familiar with all the provisions of the Water Act—that overall responsibility for sewerage and sewage disposal now rests on the shoulders of the water authorities. But, as I understand it, responsibility may also rest on the district councils and London borough councils in relation to management for the water authorities of sewers and sewage disposal plants. If I be right about that, then I suggest that the need for the provision in the 1951 Act still remains. If I am told that if the effluent from a sewage plant in a borough is found to be highly polluting in character the people who should be prosecuted are not the people who are actually managing the sewage plant but the water authorities, I shall wonder whether that is right. But if it be right, may not the same or a similar deeming provision be necessary so that neither a local authority nor a water authority can escape a responsibility which should properly fall on their shoulders by being able to say, "We are not responsible, someone else has put that into our sewers; it has come to our sewage disposal plant and from there gone to the river. The persons you must prosecute are the people who put it in"—and of course they will be very difficult to trace.
As I said, the provision in the 1951 Act has been left out of the Bill and in some respects the existing law as created by the 1951 Act has been significantly weakened. I hope that this omission was not with that intention. I shall await with interest the explanation for this departure from the provisions of the 1951 Act, which must have been carefully considered. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I should like to start by assuring the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it is certainly
1404
not the intention to weaken in any way the provisions in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, which are to be repealed because similar provisions are now contained in this Bill. During the passage of this Bill through this House we must take great care to make sure that there is none of the loopholes which the noble and learned Viscount apprehends.
He was quite right in saying that this is a matter which is specifically dealt with in Section 2 of the 1951 Act. The last part of Section 2(1)—that is, the part of the text which follows paragraph (b)—and Section 2(2) are interrelated so that "any such case as aforesaid in Section 2(2), is the case mentioned in Section 2(1) where either the local authority were bound to receive the matter into their sewer or disposal works, or the matter was discharged into their sewer or works in accordance with their consent. The noble and learned Viscount and the Committee will know that the effect of those two provisions is that where poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is discharged into a stream via a local authority sewer or sewerage disposal works, then, if the matter was lawfully discharged into the sewer or works in the first place, the person who so discharged it will not be guilty of the offence of causing or knowingly permitting it to enter the stream, but the local authority which received the matter into their sewer or sewage disposal works are to be deemed to have caused or knowingly permitted its discharge into the stream.
The reason for this is that anyone who has a legal right to discharge sewage into a local authority sewer, or who discharges trade effluent into a sewer in accordance with a consent, ought not to be penalised if the matter so discharged eventually pollutes a stream. The local authority, on the other hand, can properly be expected to provide adequate treatment for all matter which is lawfully discharged into their sewer or sewage disposal works before discharging it into a stream, and they should not be allowed any opportunity to argue that it was not they but the person who discharged the polluting matter into their sewer or works who caused or knowingly permitted it to enter the stream via the sewer or works. By implication, where a person unlawfully discharges matter into a local authority sewer

1405
or disposal works—for example, where he discharges trade effluent without a requisite consent or in breach of some conditions—it is he and not the local authority who can properly be held responsible for causing the matter to enter a stream via the sewer or disposal works.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Is the noble Lord saying—I want to follow him—that that is the position now under the 1951 Act?
LORD SANDFORD: Precisely so. I should like to put it to the Committee that there appears to be no need for the inclusion of similar provisions in Clause 23 of the Bill because, as the noble Viscount says, responsibility now rests squarely upon the shoulders of the regional water authorities. My advice is that however the regional water authorities may arrange for their functions to be discharged, that is where the responsibility remains. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for explaining his doubts about this, because it will mean that this matter is now carefully looked at again to ensure that that is so. That it my advice at the moment, but if the noble Viscount has doubts about it then certainly it needs to be looked into.
Clause 23(2)(f) as it is proposed to be amended by Amendment No. 38 will exclude from the scope of Clause 23 trade or sewage effluent discharged as mentioned in Clause 24(1)(a). Such a discharge will in future be governed entirely by Clause 24, where the question is not whether someone has caused or knowingly permitted the effluent to enter any relevant waters but whether someone has caused or knowingly permitted it to be discharged otherwise than in accordance with a consent. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we must make quite sure that this provision, primarily contained in Clause 24, is no weaker than, or is at least as strong as, the provision in the Prevention of Pollution Act 1951. I am grateful to him for having raised this, and I assure him that it will be looked into to make quite sure that it will not be possible for the regional water authorities, by arranging for their functions to be discharged by some other authority, to shift their responsibility.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I must
1406
say that I am rather puzzled about the number of different hats the water authority will have to wear. It is the water authority that will give consent to the polluting discharge being made, in which case it cannot be prosecuted for an offence under this clause. On the other hand, if it does not consent to its own discharge it will be responsible for the polluting discharge and will be liable to prosecution and conviction. It seems to me a very odd position.
Again, the noble Lord says that the water authority will be ultimately responsible. That may be, but the water authority may be a long way away from where the actual pollution occurs. I shall come back to this later, when we come to the Question, That the clause shall stand part. But I should have thought (I do not know whether the noble Lord will agree) that the people actually running the sewage farm would be liable to be prosecuted. There is nothing in the Act to say that only the water authority must be prosecuted. The person who commits the offence will be the person who causes or knowingly permits the pollution, so you can go for him. Under the law as it now stands, if you go for the local authority, and the local authority have allowed out of their sewer, without purifying it, an effluent which they were bound to receive, they are deemed to be guilty. As the Bill stands, I do not see that that will happen.
The noble Lord has referred to Clause 24. I shall be interested to hear exactly how that happens in relation to this matter. But are we not getting into a very odd position, with the water authority being the person, the noble Lord says, liable to be prosecuted and the water authority being itself the body which has to consider and determine—and finally determine for at least a year, unless the matter is called in before the Secretary of State—that a certain polluting effluent can be discharged, in which case it can exonerate itself, exclude itself, from all responsibility for the pollution and take itself outside the scope of this particular provision? It seems to me very odd, and I say frankly that I am not happy about it for the reason that, as one knows, the water authority must have on it a majority of persons appointed by local authorities, and I fear that after this we shall see very much what I fear we have seen over the

1407
years—a reluctance to take steps that ought to be taken for purifying our rivers.
In this connection, I think it would not be improper for me to say that I remember one instance, when I was Attorney General, when there was a great reluctance on the part of a river board (which also, I think, had local authority representatives serving upon it) to institute proceedings under the 1951 Act in a clear and very bad case. The person suffering from this pollution did all he could to persuade the river board to take action. He finally, I think as a last resort, wrote to the Attorney General, and I had to say to the river board quite firmly—and it did start things moving—"If you do not start proceedings I shall give my consent to proceedings being brought as a sort of longstop, and then all this delay which you have caused will come out. You had much better do it yourselves"; and I think it then happened. I am fearful that, despite all that may be said about the responsibilities of the water authority, when the water authority is so constituted we will still get the same reluctance to prosecute other people and we will still find them in the position of consenting to their own polluting discharges to prevent themselves from being prosecuted for an offence under Clause 23. That seems to me very odd, and I do not think it is right.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I find it very difficult to follow the answer given by my noble friend Lord Sandford because, as I understand it, he says that the last thing the Government want to do is to alter in any way the powers that were given under the 1951 Act, and for various reasons he does not think that is what is being done. We have grave doubts whether that is so; but the Amendment down in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and I. as I see it, reproduces what was in the 1951 Act. My noble friend Lord Sandford says that that is what the Government want. The Amendment does it. Why not accept the Amendment?
LORD SANDFORD: If I may answer the two noble Lords, I think the answer to the last point is that what I said was that we do not want to weaken the provisions of the 1951 Act but we do
1408
have to fit them into a different frame-work, and that is what Clause 24 primarily seeks to do. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is anxious about the regional water authorities being judges in their own cause; but he will have noticed Clause 47, I think, under which regulations will be made whereby discharges by the water authorities themselves will require the consent of the Secretary of State. That, perhaps, will add to my assurances on that particular point. But certainly I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having moved this Amendment. He having raised these doubts, we shall have to look into them.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord will look into them. I must say that I am very unhappy. I will make a further study of Clause 24, but I doubt very much whether it covers the same point as this deeming provision. Under Clause 24 the discharge is in certain cases "into any relevant waters" et cetera "from land" "or from a building" and "any matter other than sewage effluent"—and so on. That is the real question here which was covered by this deeming provision. The discharge was deemed to be that of the local authority. This is the question to which I should like an answer. Have you now to go back to find out who is the person who actually discharged into the sewer? If so, that is a retrograde effect of Clause 24. I do not want to press the noble Lord to go further into the matter to-night. I am grateful for his assurance that he will carefully consider this problem; and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on his understanding that, unless I am satisfied before the next stage, I shall be in order and quite entitled to put down an Amendment on the same lines and, if need be, to press it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 29, line 27, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 133 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136. All four are drafting

1409
Amendments designed solely to achieve consistency of wording.
BARONESS WHITE: I wonder whether we may be told what is the virtue of "by virtue of"? Presumably the Amendment is put down for some purpose and not merely for elegancy of style.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is not elegant.
BARONESS WHITE: I should be grateful to know whether in any sense it widens the significance of this part of the clause. We are referring not only to polluting matter but also to possible poisonous or obnoxious matter, so that the matter is extremely important. One wishes to know how specific this is to be. If an entry in question is authorised by the consent given by the Secretary of State, how is it changed it it is to be by virtue of the consent given by the Secretary of State? Is that something which is broader? This is not by any means a frivolous question. If you are dealing with poisonous substances it is important to be absolutely specific, and one should not allow a somewhat wider sphere of activity by bringing in some phrase which could be used as an element in a defence if some poisonous substance was introduced into the water in question. I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but presumably this Amendment has some significance, and if in any sense it widens, and therefore weakens, specific consents which might be given, we should be rather worried about it.
LORD SANDFORD: There is no reason for the Amendment beyond that which I gave, to provide consistency. An example of words already in the Bill may be found in Clause 24(3) at page 33, line 27. There is no other significance at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I thought that was so—there is no significance at all, You might just as well say "by" instead of putting down four Amendments to make three words do the work of one, It would be better to amend the Bill where you have the words "by virtue of" by taking out "virtue of". I do not know why there is this passion for inserting "virtue" in this Bill. It is bad drafting to push in these words. There
1410
is no significant change in the meaning. I suggest to the noble Lord that he had better think again, withdraw these Amendments and table an Amendment to take out the unnecessary words "virtue of" where they appear later. It really is bad drafting unnecessarily to insert this verbiage.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be glad to consider that point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 134A:
Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("State") to ("in") in line 30.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom is indisposed and is not able to be present in the Committee to-night. I know that this Amendment is one in which he has a great personal interest. I cannot move it, but I thought that I should give that explanation to the Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that I can move the Amendment, can I not?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, can move it.
BARONESS WHITE: I hesitate about this because I happen to know that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom has a very close personal interest in this Amendment and I think that he would wish to be here to speak on it. It could be brought up at a later stage. I am in that difficulty. Any noble Lord could have moved the Amendment on his behalf, but I happen to know that it is a matter in which he has long taken a personal interest.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was not pressing the matter, except that I thought it might be of interest to get on the Record what the Government had to say about it. I can raise the points I wish to raise on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: I am not proposing to move the Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to

1411
move it to obtain an explanation from the Government, that might be done. But I have no permission to move it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT Hoop): Amendment No. 134A is not moved.
9.10 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 134B:
Page 29, line 29, leave out ("or a disposal authority")
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment which I beg to move. The reason for it is that we are not at all happy that, when dealing with poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, we should rely on a consent given by a disposal authority. So far as we can understand it, a disposal authority, which is dealt with in Part I of the Bill and not in Part II, licenses the disposal of waste on land. In our opinion it is not part of the function of a disposal authority to given consent under Part II of the Bill. The disposal authority would have no particular knowledge of the conditions which would be applicable to consent under Part IL which relates to the control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters. Therefore it would appear to us to be far from satisfactory to confine the consent under this clause either to the Secretary of State or to the water authority, which is the responsible body.
We do not believe that the disposal authorities, as defined in Part I of the Bill, would have the necessary expert advice at their disposal and therefore we cannot see why they should be included among those who are apparently to be given power to,
"permit the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into streams, controlled waters or underground water".
I should be very glad to know from the Minister why it was thought necessary to include disposal authorities in this section. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the Amendment of the noble Baroness. I cannot see that there would be any difficulty or objection if I were to speak at the same time to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom (though it has not been moved) without prejudice to his putting
1412
it down at a later stage if he so wishes. Therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I should like to speak to both these Amendments together. They limit the defence provided in Clause 23 (2)(a) against prosecution for causing or knowingly permitting polluting matter to enter water.
As the Bill stands, if the person concerned has a consent from the Secretary of State or a water authority or a disposal authority and the entry is in accordance with the conditions, then he is not to be guilty of any offence. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would leave no defence based on a consent by a water or disposal authority, and the Amendment of the noble Baroness would leave no defence based on the consent of the disposal authority. Consent will be given by the Secretary of State only in very exceptional circumstances, so the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would be virtually to remove the defence altogether.
One of the points which may have prompted the noble Baroness to move her Amendment may perhaps be met when I say that disposal licences are to be issued by disposal authorities only after reference to the water authority. So there seems to be no justification for distinguishing, so far as the defence is concerned, between these two types of authority. In either case the person who may otherwise be prosecuted for the offence will have taken all the requisite steps to obtain authority to dispose of waste or to carry on a prescribed activity referred to in Clause 23(5); and I do not think that it would be acceptable if, having done all that and having observed all the conditions imposed, he still were to be subject to criminal prosecution for the consequences of his act. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that it is not equitable or fair to accept either Amendment. I do not think that the noble Baroness made this point, but she is quite right in taking exception to the word "consent" in this clause, because (as we have been hearing in Part I of the Bill) the authorities do not give consents but licences and certainly the Bill needs amendment in that respect. The Government will undertake to move such an Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the removal, at this particular stage, of the water authority would go too far, because it would put in the hands of a Government Department the licensing arrangements; and that would be too centralised. However, I must say that I support the noble Baroness in thinking that it really should not rest with the disposal authority to give consent, using the terminology of the Bill, and I am strengthened in that belief by the speech which we have just heard from the Minister. I have not seen this point in the Bill, but if it be the case that the disposal authority cannot give consent without referring to the water authority, would it not be much better to let the water authority do the whole thing and grant all the licences? They would then have full knowledge of what licences are given. Is it not possible, without infringing the dignity of the disposal authority, to say: "You must apply. No doubt the water authority will pay a great deal of attention to your application. You pass the application for consent straight on to the water authority who will deal with it."? There would be a lot to be said for that. I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider that, at least.
LORD SANDFORD: That is certainly a point that can be looked into.
BARONESS WHITE: I hope it might be looked into because there might be real difficulties in this respect in administering this Bill when it becomes an Act if one brings in a disposal authority into Part II of the Bill. I made the point about the difference between consent and licence. It is true that in Clause 7(1)(a) it is incumbent upon a disposal authority to ensure that the activities to which the licence relates do not cause pollution of water, among other things; so the disposal authority has that obligation as well as an obligation to consult, which I have not yet bean able to "track" in Part I of the Bill. I do not propose to press the Amendment at this stage, but I hope very much that the Government will look at this carefully and possibly write to one or two of us who are specially interested in this, so that we know exactly what their reasons are and can decide whether it would be appropriate to put down this Amendment or another one at a later stage. There may be great difficulty in administration if this Part of the Bill
1414
remains unamended. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 29, line 33, after ("a") insert ("necessary").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is not so significant, but nevertheless it appears to us necessary to put it down as at least a probing Amendment. We are not happy about it. We feel that some such word as "necessary" should be inserted because various things might be a consequence of something which has been permitted but not a necessary or desirable consequence. It has been suggested to me that one might have a consent to certain work, say in a tidal estuary, which would lead to the excavation of waste in a building construction. It might be as a consequence of that excavation that the waste was then thrown in the tidal estuary. It might be very undesirable. It would not be a necessary consequence, but it would be a consequence, and it could be used as a defence.
The Government may or may not feel disposed to accept the Amendment, but I am asking that they should look carefully at this because we do not wish to offer free defences to persons who may be doing things which are damaging to water courses but who could then say, "You said that we could do so and so, and this is a result of our doing so and so ", whereas they might have done something quite different. It is not a necessary consequence of the original consent. It may appear slightly niggling, but I can foresee circumstances in which we would be offering a defence which ought not to be allowed to persons who might be carrying out some activity damaging to our water courses. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I do not think that this is a niggling point; it is well worth discussing. The dictionary defines a "consequence" as
"a thing or circumstance which follows as an effect of or result from something preceding".
Presumably the noble Baroness is seeking by the Amendment to underline that

1415
this relief is not to be enjoyed if, although a consequence, the entry was not an inevitable result of the authorised act but might, with some additional precautions, have been avoided, and was in that sense an "unnecessary" consequence. I am not unsympathetic to that intention; but I do not think that the additional word is needed to lead the courts to that conclusion. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, could help us on that point.
I suggest that the word is not needed because if the polluting entry was the result of some negligent or malicious way of exercising a power given by Statute, then the courts could be relied upon to recognise that it was not a consequence of an act so authorised but of the way in which the person concerned had acted, In any event, the acts authorised by the Statutes and Instruments mentioned are either of a kind where there is little room for controlling what enters in consequence of the act (for example, if wow' is to be pumped away from an area on which some structure such as a dam is being erected, it has to be removed in the state in which it is found there); or, if there is scope for reducing the effects of the discharge, provision is likely to be made in the local Act or order, as is normally the case. This latter course is, I think, the proper procedure. If, however, acts are authorised by legislation, the person concerned ought not to be penalised because of their consequences. The legislation ought, where practical and desirable, to specify the precautions to be taken against undesirable consequences In brief, I do not think we need this word, and I think we can rely on the courts.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord suggested that I might express a view, and I will express an unconsidered view. I must say I am not very happy about his explanation. One particular act may have a whole series of consequences. I think everyone recognises that in the ordinary use of the English language. It is recognised in this provision because it is "a consequence"; it is not "in consequence". If it were "in consequence", I do not think the word "necessary" would be necessary. But it is recognising it as "a consequence" which in itself suggests that there may be
1416
more than one consequence. I think if the noble Lord inserted the word "in" there, it would be totally clear. I must say that I do not like it being said, when drafting is imprecise, Well, you can rely on the courts doing what we want them to do", when the courts only have the imprecise drafting to look at. It is not satisfactory. The drafting really ought to be improved above its present standards.
BARONESS WHITE: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that admirable suggestion. I give notice that I will put the Amendment down for Report stage, so I give the Government plenty of time to think about it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the current Amendment, which should have added the word "necessary".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 136B:
Page 29, line 41, leave out ("local Act or ").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the reference to local Acts in Clause 23(2)(b)(ii). This is a matter which I think we shall have to revert when we come to a question of sewers in Clause 37. Meanwhile, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the problems which can be raised by these various local Acts. I understand that the words "local Act" comprises not only Acts promoted by local authorities, but also by, for example, railways, canal authorities, harbour Acts, and so on. It can sometimes be very difficult to discover and find out precisely what the provisions of these Acts are—sometimes with considerable labour. But a number of them, I am advised, do in fact provide for rights to discharge in certain circumstances. Simply to say that if an entry is authorised by
"any provision of a local Act … which expressly confers power to discharge effluent into water …",
and leave it at that, could surely leave us with a very unsatisfactory position in many places.
I should like to know what are the Government's intentions in this matter, because I think I am correct in saying that there is no other provision in the Bill—there may be, and if there is I would be happy to be told of it—whereby one can meet these local difficulties which, in a

1417
particular locality, might have quite serious detrimental consequences. After all, the condition of our water courses may be very different to-day from their condition when this local legislation was enacted, and what might have been of relative unimportance at that time may now become of considerable significance. In any case, we are far more conscious of the state of our water courses now than may have been the case quite a while ago when some of these Acts were passed. I should very much like to know the Government's attitude to this subject, and I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am puzzled by the noble Baroness's Amendment, though I have every sympathy with it. Simply striking out the words "local Act" will not do away with the local Act; it is necessary to repeal it. If there is provision for the local Act, I think one will have to go rather further than this Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate that when one is dealing with a complex matter such as this the easiest way to have a discussion on it is to put down a general Amendment and leave it to the Government to work out how to carry it out effectively.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I entirely accept that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before the noble Lord comes to reply, I should be grateful if, in the course of his reply, he could say how this problem, which must have existed in 1951, was dealt with under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act of that year. I cannot recollect any express provision in that Act dealing with discharges of polluting liquid under local Acts. It may be that it is something that has been left out from 1951 to 1974, and if it has been left out for all that time without any ill-effects, it might be left out now. I do not know. But I hope that the noble Lord, when suitably briefed, will be able to throw some light on this problem.
If I may take up time until he receives his instructions, I do not think we ought, by a side wind, to take away any vested rights under a local Act to make a particular discharge into a particular water course. I do not think that that would
1418
be the right way to do it. I must say that I think it necessary, in view of the way some provisions get through in local Acts, to provide that a local Act should not override Clause 23 in the future. Otherwise we may find that Clause 23 is getting watered down by a whole series of local Acts.
9.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the position. I will start off by explaining the way in which this particular Bill is related to local Acts, and then do my best to deal with the question of how it was dealt with under the 1951 Act. I think we have to start from the proposition made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe; that is to say, if Parliament in its wisdom, even though some time ago, has acceded to the petition of a person promoting a local Bill, including provision authorising a discharge, it would be wrong, at least without a special inquiry in each case, to render that provision null and void, thereby penalising the petitioner if he acts under authority which Parliament has given him.
We do not have a complete list of all these local Acts, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, implied, it would be an enormous task to prepare one of all the the instances where such authority has been given. It would not however be unexpected in, for example, a local Act authorising the construction of a new reservoir for provision to be made authorising water that has been muddied in the course of construction to be pumped out into the water course below the dam. But just to take an example of the kind of safeguards which are included in local Acts, the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) Act 1969 is a fairly recent case. The Act concerned provides in Section 45(2) that as little damage as possible should be done and where any damage was done compensation should be paid.
Subsection (3) of Section 45 requires all necessary steps to be taken to secure that the water discharged shall be as free as may be reasonably practicable of mud, silt, and polluting matter. Subsection (4) requires that in all instances, except an emergency, the terms and conditions of the discharge should be agreed with the river authority before it is made, and so on. So my right honourable

1419
friend feels that after Parliament has authorised this or that to be done by local Act, it cannot be rendered null and void at a stroke without an inquiry into each particular case. But we feel that the general principle to which I have referred, in the absence of any evidence of any undesirable consequences as a result of these, is insufficient justification for the continuation of the protection afforded under the earlier Act.
That is not the end of the matter, however. The noble Baroness is perfectly right when she says that some of these Acts were introduced a long time ago. They permitted things about which we are now more sensitive—for example, the protection of the environment—and which we should not want to see continued to-day. Provision for the tightening up of loopholes (if that is the right word to use) in such cases is contained in Clause 96(3) which reads:
"The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision of any local Act passed before this Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order) or of any order or other instrument made under an Act so passed if it appears to him that the provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires alteration in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act."
I hope that that explanation is sufficient to satisfy the noble Baroness and the Committee, that the words "local act" ought to stay in, but that the defects in old local acts, which is what I think the noble Baroness was chiefly concerned about, can be made good by the exercise of the powers under Clause 96(3). I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to respond to that before I deal with the second point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
BARONESS WHITE: I am indeed grateful to have my attention drawn to Clause 96(3) which I had not fully appreciated. That, so far as it goes, is a very useful provision. What worries me, however, is what possible guarantee have we that anybody will look at these Acts unless there is some scandalous situation somewhere which spurs the Secretary of State on to take advantage of Clause 96(3). I am thinking aloud here, but would it not be possible somewhere, later on in the Bill, to say that these
1420
people who make their discharges by virtue of private Acts passed a long time ago (the Empingham reservoir is a recent example, as the noble Lord himself freely admitted) should have to ask for consents like anybody else? I do not think that the long-stop provision in Clause 96(3) is likely to be activated sufficiently to take into account situations which may well be unsatisfactory. I am delighted to know that it is there, because it may deal, for example, with what I was going to raise under Clause 37, which is the local Act in Huddersfield. As a result of that local legislation, Huddersfield can discharge trade effluent of almost any description, so far as I can understand it, into sewers; and at the present time the local river authorities have no control whatsoever over what trade effluent emerges from the sewers of Huddersfield because they are covered by local legislation.
Although I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to Clause 96(3), and I shall not be pressing this particular Amendment, I think that we should exercise our minds to see if we cannot think of some method by which we can ensure that Clause 96(3) will be of real value.
LORD SANDFORD: The short answer to the noble Baroness is of course that the regional water authorities, where they find pollution going on through the exercise of some loophole in an old local Act, will be the people who in the first instance will ask for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under that clause. If, on reflection, I can add any more detail to that by way of assurance to the noble Baroness I will certainly do so by correspondence before the next stage, and we can return to it if she is not satisfield. If I may take this opportunity to answer the question raised by the noble and learned Viscount about the 1951 Act, that dealt in Section 11(7) with local Acts in a similar way to the clause we have just been considering.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 136C:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("or good quarrying practice.").
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent a person from being guilty of an offence if—
"the entry in question is … in accordance with good agricultural practice or good quarrying practice."
It is suggested that the operation of running quarries is similar to that of agriculture. The exemption from licensing is designed to cater for the need for mineral operators to deal with water and the excavating of minerals. Water is either pumped out of a quarry and disposed of straight away, or it may be used for washing the mineral on the site. In either case, once it has been pumped out it is discharged to a stream, to another quarry, or in some cases on to land. Up till now there has been no need to obtain consent for the disposal of such water. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1963 mineral operators were not required to obtain a licence in order to abstract water which interfered with mining, quarrying or other operations. This exemption from licensing still applies notwithstanding that the water is used for quarry washing.
The terms of Clause 23 are so widely drawn, however, that it would be possible to complain that an offence under subsection (1) had been committed if there were any element of polluting matter, however small, in the water pumped out of the quarry. This can cause considerable problems for an operator, because he needs to get licences or consent for all his de-watering operations owing to the varying conditions and the irregularity of the programme for de-watering. It appears to be recognised by river authorities that de-watering of this type does not produce harmful effects. In view of the exemption given to acts in accordance with good agricultural practice it is strongly recommended that a similar exemption be conferred on good quarrying practice, where the situation is largely comparable. It will still be subject to Clause 43 if the water authority finds that any relevant waters are likely to be polluted. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I am worried about this because although the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, used the word "quarry" I took him to mean mining operations as well. Supposing, for example, Rio Tinto Zinc had decided to
1422
proceed with mining operations in Snowdonia National Park, one of the apprehensions we had about the possible course of action was the effect that those mining operations could have on the streams in the National Park and on the Mawddach estuary. If I understand the noble Lord aright, he is saying that other than for the safeguards given in Clause 43 such operations should be allowed to proceed without any consent. I find it difficult to go along with that. There are other rivers in Wales where we have considerable lead content. We used to have considerable lead mining in parts of North and mid-Wales, and in the state of the world at the moment and the scarcity of one material after another it is not inconceivable that even lead mining might be resumed at some point in time and we might have serious pollution.
Therefore, I find it difficult to be happy about this Amendment. Besides which the noble Earl did not indicate who was to decide what was good quarrying practice. Under the reference to good agricultural practice, which is also an extremely wide provision, there is at least an arrangement whereby this must be consonant with the code laid down by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and later in the Bill we are proposing to move an Amendment that it shall be in co-operation with the National Water Council. But I am not quite sure who is to determine what is "good quarrying practice". I should be happier if the noble Earl or his noble friend whose name also appears in connection with the Amendment could tell us about it.
LORD HENLEY: I am far from happy at this equation of good mining practice with good agricultural practice. I do not believe that in this context they are the same thing at all. In the old days very often a mining lease—
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I said "good quarrying practice"; that is quite different from mining practice.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: That raises a very difficult question: where does quarrying begin and end, and where does mining begin and end? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, inadvertently put his linger on the spot when he spoke about "mining practice". Mining and quarrying are very much

1423
alike and it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. If we take the example mentioned by the noble Baroness—lead—or possibly copper in North Wales, and there is a lot of poison in copper; possibly tin in Cornwall and we speak about "mining tin"—or you may be quarrying it—I do not know. I think that this is a very big field. I am sorry to intervene like this.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the difference between quarrying and mining is that quarrying is opencast whereas mining is underground, unless it is called "opencast mining".
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Yes, but we have opencast mining in the Forest of Dean and there it is called "mining".
BARONESS WHITE: You can also have underground quarrying.
LORD HENLEY: It depends very much on what is the difference between quarrying and mining. To put it in a different way, very often old mining leases used the expression that something should be done "in a good miner-like way". Similarly very often the soldier's instructions were that he should behave "in a soldier-like manner". The two expressions, "a soldier-like manner" and "a miner-like manner", both have meanings and of course they are meanings which must be followed closely if you are to be a good miner or a good soldier, but they have no relation whatever to good agricultural practice in the context of this Bill. I do not want in any way to be offensive to the noble Earl but I feel that there is an element of trying to get on to the agricultural bandwagon, which I think would be a mistake.
LORD ENERGLYN: I should like to enter thtis debate. I think that what the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, means when he speaks about "good quarrying practice" in relation to water is that a quarry is run so that the quarry floor does not get flooded. If you are quarrying you are bleeding an aquafer into producing water; if that water is draining away naturally it is likely to lead to an artificial spring and it is questionable whether that artificial spring would be polluting the rivers. I think that this is what the noble
1424
Earl means by "good quarrying practice".
9.45 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure it is necessary to try to raise the general standard of quarrying, but however successfully that is done I would agree with the noble Lords who have said it is not possible to regard quarrying and farming as though they were two very similar activities, both more or less equivalently related to water pollution. The special provision in the Bill has been limited to farmers for three good reasons. First of all, modern farming involves applying extensively to the soil substances which, in sufficient concentrations, would pollute water unacceptably. Secondly, agriculture still uses so much of the surface of the land, even in industrialised countries like ours, that in the aggregate farming is far more at risk than any other industry of inadvertently polluting water. Thirdly, it is still an industry in which a large number of people work in small units, on their own account. So I should like to put it to the Committee, as in fact noble Lords have already done, that the quarrying industry is different and does not satisfy any of the tests we have applied, and which have led us to conclude that farming should be treated in the way it is in the Bill.
It may be that extracting stone or other material by excavation has its special dangers for water; impermeable beds may be removed or fractured so as to allow polluting matter access to underground water. But this is something which should be capable of investigation, which the industry ought to investigate before it starts work on a particular site. The precise movement of, say, nitrate fertiliser after application to the soil presents quite a different sort of problem. Again, quarrying is not primarily an industry of one man, or of one-family units, and the bigger units can be expected to have a better capability of determining what water might be put at risk, what the risks would be in developing a particular area, especially as, compared with agriculture, quarrying occupies relatively little land.
Finally, I think the effects of quarrying are more likely to be sudden and irreversible than the effects of pollution by agriculture which, although they may be serious, build up over a period. It

1425
would be wrong, I submit to the Committee, once a threat to water has been identified, to allow quarrying to go on under the protection of a defence of the kind available to farmers and subject to those procedures. So for those reasons, and those raised by other noble Lords, I would hope that the noble Earl would not press this Amendment. If he can see any other way of securing rights for the quarrying industry which are not adequately secured by this Bill, we will be only too happy to consider them.
THE EARL or COURTOWN: I am sorry to hear that the Government will not accept this Amendment. It certainly did not receive a very favourable reception in the Committee. I believe there is considerable anxiety in the quarrying industry, particularly from the aspect that when one starts, having planning permission, to take out gravel from a place, one never quite knows to what extent that place will fill with water and where that water is going, where it has to be pumped to. But it is clear that this particular Amendment would not be acceptable to the Committee, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 136A:
Page 30, line 6, after ("notice") insert ("which is in force when the entry occurs and which was").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 136A, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 171A. We now come to the topic of good agricultural practice, and I would suppose we shall have a wider debate when we get to Amendment No. 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. But just to speak to this particular Amendment at this moment, the general effect of Clause 23(2)(c) is to provide a defence against prosecution for polluting water if the act leading to pollution is in accordance with good agricultural practice and no notice has been served on the farmer under Clause 43. However, there may be circumstances in which the notice under Clause 43 ought to be cancelled, and Amendment No. 171A to Clause 43 would make this possible.
The purpose of the present Amendment is to make it plain that the defence of
1426
good agricultural practice is only removed while a notice is in force; the defence becomes effective again once the notice is cancelled and remains so unless a fresh notice is served and becomes operative. I think that is all I need say at this stage in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, has down Amendment No. 140, when it will be possible to enlarge on that point if necessary. I hope I have said enough to make this Amendment clear. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: May I make a little plea that we might be given some notice if the Government spokesman is going to take a very distant Amendment with the one he is moving. I have not been given notice so far of any grouping in Part II and I was quite unaware that it was going to be done.
LORD SANDFORD: I will certainly undertake to do that, and I offer my apologies for not doing it on this occasion. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that, although the whole idea is one that we should debate, this particular provision is quite a simple one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: This is a drafting Amendment. To be consistent with the rest of the subsection the verb should be in the present tense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("occurred") and insert ("occurs")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 30, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This, I fear, even at this late hour, I regard as an important Amendment. I will try to deal with it as shortly as I can, because I fear that at the next stage of this Committee I will not be able to be here owing to other duties, and I very much hope to finish the debate on this Amendment now. Paragraph (d) provides a defence to a person charged with the offence created by subsection (1) if the entry in question is attributable to events none of which that person could reasonably have been expected to prevent. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in

1427
saying that there is no similar provision in the 1951 Act. This is the kind of thing that makes me feel that the existing law is being watered down, and I wonder why.
In this connection, I feel I should draw attention to a decision of this House in another capacity, a case in which I had to sit, Alphacell Limited v. Woodward. The whole question was whether the company had caused or knowingly permitted a very serious pollution of what I thought was one of the most polluted rivers in this country, I think in Manchester. That was the question at issue; had they permitted that. It was held that they had. There was no question of having to prove that they had done it knowingly, intentionally, or that it had been negligently caused. The fact was that they had caused it. It was a curious case. They had installed a system under which a great deal of water re-circulated and was pumped round, and they had a spare pump in case of difficulties and settling tanks next door to the river. The day came when for some reason the roses which were supposed to stop debris getting into the pumps did not do so. Both pumps got blocked and out came this very highly polluted liquid straight into the river. As the law then stood, no defence like the one put forward by paragraph (d) would, I think, have sufficed. It was not there under the 1951 Act.
It is regrettable, in the light of the decision of this House, that an attempt is now made to water down the law as then declared. I think it regrettable for more than one reason. I can see the defence, "We could not reasonably have been expected to prevent that," being put forward in almost every case. It would be a very useful defence. Failure to anticipate the possible breakdown of a pump, leaves getting in when no one knew where the leaves came from, is the sort of defence that people could put forward. This is quite new and wrong. I hope that in the short time available the noble Lord will say that he will think it over again, and not be put off by the unkind treatment that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, received from doing that so courteously and so frequently.
LORD STOW HILL: May I add one word to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I cordially support
1428
him, not only for the general reason that he gave that this was an undesirable watering down of what should be a strict prohibition, but also because this paragraph involves what is almost a contradiction in terms. No offence can possibly be committed unless the person charged can be said either to have caused, or knowingly to have permitted, the entry in question. One does not get anywhere near establishing that an offence has been committed unless the prosecution can affirmatively show either that the individual in question caused, or knowingly permitted, the entry. Both those are conscious acts of omission. You do not cause something just because you turn the other way and it happens behind your back without your knowing it. To cause something your will and mind must go with it. Equally, you do not knowingly permit something to happen unless your mind knows what is going on and you consciously permit it.
It seems to me—and I say this with great respect to the expert gentleman responsible for this language—rather sloppy drafting to say that it should be a defence if the entry in question is attributable to something which you could not have been expected to prevent. If it is attributable to something which you could not have been expected to prevent, how in the world can you have caused or knowingly permitted it? That language comes very near to being a complete contradiction. That is the second ground on which I hope the Government will agree that this paragraph should be omitted. It really is balderdash. It ought not to be in the clause at all. It reeks of loose thinking, and I ask the Government to say, not simply that they are going to think about it, but to say they are satisfied with the noble and learned Viscount's arguments, and that they will just put a pen through it and strike it out.
May I say one word on the succeeding Amendment in relation to this particular Amendment, because they go together. This seeks to introduce the words "without having taken all due care". There is a slight misprint in the Marshalled List; "the" should be "due". At least that seeks to import some reference to the conduct and conscious behaviour of the individual who is charged. You have at least to show that

1429
he did not take all due care. That would be a little more reasonable. This is a quite unjustifiable paragraph, and I very much hope that the Government will accede to the Amendment which has been moved.
LORD ENERGLYN: I too should like to support the two noble and learned Lords on this Amendment. In addition to the Alphacell case, I could recount a number of other similar instances which never reached the courts but which could easily have done so.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: If my memory serves me aright, paragraph (c) in subsection (3) of Clause 3 is similar, and the Committee accepted it. I should have thought that this paragraph was essential. If someone has done all in his power to avoid pollution, he ought not to be made a criminal because of an accident or some other cause which he could not have avoided. If there is an accidental discharge from a works operated by a responsible company, it is the general practice for the firm concerned to inform the controlling authority as soon as possible. If such disclosure will lead automatically to prosecution for a criminal offence, is there not a danger that such discharges will be concealed and we shall be worse off?
LORD HENLEY: Am I right in thinking that there is a slight danger of creating an absolute offence if this paragraph is deleted, thereby weakening the whole of Clause 23?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may add a further word, I do not think the noble Lord is right. This matter of whether it is a criminal offence was discussed and considered in the Alphacell case, and it was there said that it is criminal only in one sense. It is like a public nuisance, as indeed it is if you put filthy water into a river. It will be a retrograde step if this provision is included, because I do not think that the 1951 Act had in it anything comparable. Under the 1951 Act, there were very few prosecutions indeed for many years, and it is only in the last year or so that the number has reached anything lke three figures. I do not want to see the door opened wider than it now is for the defence. The existing statutory provision is working
1430
very well and I should like to see it kept like that.
It is not an absolute offence, in the sense that you do not have to do anything. As my noble friend has said, you have to cause it or knowingly permit it, and in the Alphacell case it was caused by installing a system whereby the overflow was bound to take place unless it was successfully prevented. There has to be a causation under one head before there can be a conviction, and there has to be knowing permission under the other limb of the offence. That is all that is required, and once the issue is complicated by this new kind of defence it is making a tremendous relaxation.
LORD SANDFORD: I confess, as a layman, that on these legal matters I am in the rather uncomfortable position of being advised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to do one thing, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to do another.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No. I shall be very content if the Amendment is carried.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to point out, in view of the obscurity of my Amendment, that I am trying to support the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
10.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I will take the advice of the noble and learned Viscount and will certainly agree to consider the Amendment, though I shall avoid the temptation offered me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to accept it here and now. I should like to add only two points to the discussion which we have had. I find myself torn between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the one hand, who advised us one way, and the Law Commission—another august legal body—which advised us another way. It is primarily on the advice of the Law Commission, who were consulted about this Bill (because in so many respects it is a consolidating measure) that paragraph (d) has been included, not to narrow the scope of the offence provisions as they have so far been interpreted by the courts, but because the potential scope of the offence is so wide that the saving in paragraph (d) was thought to be

1431
necessary. I must say that our advice so far is that paragraph (d), if it had applied in the Alphacell case, would not have provided them with a defence. All I should like to say in conclusion is that this is recognised to be a difficult and evenly balanced point. I shall certainly take away with me all the points which have been made, and I readily agree to consider the point which the noble and learned Viscount made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I certainly could not agree with the advice which the noble Lord has received as to the effect on the Alphacell case, on which I sat, it this defence had been available. So far as the Law Commission are concerned, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he ought to ask the Law Commission to reconsider their view in the light of what was said in the Alphacell case, if they have not already done so. It may well be that the Law Commission have been very busy; and the judgments in that case came out later. I am content for the time being with the noble Lord's assurance. If we get no satisfaction at a later stage, I shall follow my noble and learned friend (if I may call him that) into the Division Lobby to try to get his point of view acceded to; but I hope that we may get that without any dis-
1432
agreement. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: It is now five minutes past ten o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  COUNTER-INFLATION ACTS
  COUNTER-INFLATION ACTS