Sitting of 19 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  CYPRUS
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a further statement about Cyprus.
  May I begin by apologising to you and the Opposition for the fact that the statement has been delivered so late. It will, I hope, be understood that this is a moving situation and it was essential that last-minute additions and alterations could be made to what I had to say.
  Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last reported to the House two days ago, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have had talks with Archbishop Makarios the President of the Republic of Cyprus. They have also had talks with Turkish Prime Minister and his colleagues and with Mr. Joseph Sisco, the American Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs. In these consultations and exchanges the aim of Her Majesty's Government has been to explore the details of a situation which remains very grave and to determine the lines on which progress might best be made. We have urged restraint on all concerned and have emphasised the need to avoid further unilateral action.
  The Security Council has met once and will be meeting again later today. The North Atlantic Council is also meeting regularly and playing a very helpful rôle.
  It is essential that time should be allowed for this complex and confidential process to be pursued. My right hon. Friends have made this clear to the Turkish Prime Minister and to his acting Foreign Minister.
  We have also been in regular contact with the Government of Greece. Following our repeated representations, we were
  854
  informed early yesterday that the orders for the replacement of the Greek officers in the Cyprus National Guard had been signed. This means that the officers who led the coup in Cyprus will be withdrawn from the island. The withdrawal will start in the next few days. This is significant progress but it is only the first step towards a solution of the problem.
  This morning we have formally asked the Greek Government to send representatives to London immediately. We intend to discuss with the Greek Government and others concerned how the National Guard should be officered in future and whether the system of providing security within Cyprus should be modified. We believe that if we get this right to the satisfaction of all concerned, it will be a major step forward towards restoration of confidence and stability.
  There is now no fighting in the island and Nicosia airport was opened to traffic yesterday. Substantial numbers of British holidaymakers have already been able to leave. For the time being, in a situation which is still highly uncertain, I am sure that all British subjects considering a visit to Cyprus will wish to postpone their journey.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be obliged to the Minister. It is important that we should have the latest information. There will therefore be no complaints, I am sure, that this statement was a little late. What governs this statement, of course, is the tripartite treaty.
  The Minister will remember that I asked last time whether we were in close touch with the Greek Government. I am therefore glad that he has asked representatives of the Greek Government to come here to talk the situation over, because the key to a peaceful solution lies largely with them. I think that the gradual withdrawal of the Greek officers of the National Guard there now is important progress. It is too early to say whether this will lead to a peaceful solution. I have no questions but I am glad that the Greek Government representatives are coming here. It is essential that they should be party to a peaceful settlement.
  Mr. Hooson: Does the Minister realise that his statement is very disturbing? Is not the implication of what he said that there is to be not only withdrawal of

  855
  the Greek officers but their replacement by others? While other NATO countries have been soft with the previous Greek régime and the present régime, has this not led to a greater risk of confrontation than if the NATO countries had been much tougher with both régimes? Is not the trouble that the gestures by the Greek Government—they are no more than gestures—will not prove satisfying to the Turks and that there is a real danger of conflagration in the Middle East? This country appears to be siding with the line alleged now to be taken by Dr. Kissinger, who is reported as having said that President Makarios is now a spent political force and to be backing the present régime in Greece, and to be supported in his views by the Greek Government?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me a long and important question which was really in two parts. I hope the House will forgive me if I give an equally long answer. I must make it clear that the United States Government recognise our central position in this situation as one of the guaranteeing Powers. The United States Government are supporting our position and giving us all the help they can in seeking to achieve the solution to the situation which has been described in the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I hope I can put the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest on that point.
  I very much share some of his fears about the Cyprus National Guard and I certainly am sympathetic to the spirit of his question, which I will seek to answer in three ways. First, it is substantial progress that the officers whom we know to be largely responsible for the coup are themselves to leave Cyprus. Second, while it is essential that the Cyprus National Guard should exist—if it exists in future—in the new form, it is equally important for peace and stability in Cyprus that it should not exist during the next days and weeks totally without officers and NCOs. Were there to be an immediate withdrawal and no replacement, there would be a National Guard with no chain of command. I do not believe that that would be in the interests of the Cyprus people.
  What is in the interests of the Cyprus people is that the officers personally in-
  856
  volved in the coup should leave the island and that we should begin very soon—as soon as the Greek Government send their representatives to London—to talk about a more fundamental reorganisation of the Cyprus National Guard. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I do not disagree about how that should be carried out.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Is my hon. Friend aware that by inexplicably using the word "replacement" instead of "withdrawal" originally, the Government have handed the first diplomatic and military round to the Grek Government on a platter? Will the Government now tackle the question of the Greek officers in the National Guard very much more realistically?
  Mr. Hattersley: I repeat what I have said to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson.) I believe that our response has been realistic. Realism requires us to understand the great dangers and difficulties that might exist were the officers of the Cyprus National Guard to return at once to Greece leaving the unit without officers or NCOs, in a potentially dangerous if not explosive situation. I share my right hon. Friend's views that a more fundamental reorganisation of the guard has to take place but I do not believe it would be in anyone's interests that the guard should have been left without officers and NCOs during the past 48 hours or that it should be left without them during the next 72 hours.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: In spite of the natural abhorrence of what is being done by the Greek régime, may I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider that the problem is one of maintaining peace in the area? This is the main interest. To this end, when the Greek Government representatives come here, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider reconvening a meeting of the three guarantors of the independence of Cyprus? Otherwise we shall have a totally unbalanced situation.
  Mr. Hattersley: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will consider it. The right hon. Gentleman may accept that the present situation, in which one of the guarantors believes that another guarantor has been

  857
  guilty of what amounts to agrresssion, is not an ideal one in which the three parties should sit down together. If that were possible it would be the path of progress. Perhaps what has happened over the past five days makes it almost impossible to take that path.
  Mr. Mikardo: When my hon. Friend says that if the Greek Government representatives come here he will discuss with them the future organisation of the Cyprus National Guard, does he realise that he is virtually conceding to the Greek Government some sort of suzerainty over Cyprus? Why on earth is the officering of the Cyprus National Guard any more a matter for the Greek Government than the officering of the army of any other country apart from Greece? If my hon. Friend is sincere in what he is saying and wants to lean on the Greek Government, would not the best thing be to say to their representatives "Whatever happens we will not recognise the Sampson régime"?
  Mr. Hattersley: There is no question of the British Government recognising the Sampson régime. If my hon. Friend wants an assurance on that point, he has it. I think he had it earlier this week. I am happy to repeat that assurance today. As for the invitation to the Greek Government, that Government has a locus in this matter in two respects. First, it is one of the guarantors; perhaps at this moment that is a rather paradoxical situation. Nevertheless that is the situation and we must discuss the future of Cyprus with that Government in those terms. Secondly, the Greek Government has a locus in terms of reality. It has a force on the island, established under the treaty, and it has influence over what is going on in the island.
  While there is no question of accepting the Greek Government's suzerainty, no question of accepting, acknowledging or in the remotest way approving of what the Greek Government have been responsible for over the past week, it would be irresponsible of us not to face the realities of the situation. Therefore the Greek Government must hear our views. They will be forcibly expressed but they must hear them.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the tripartite guarantee, is not one very serious
  858
  aspect of this grave matter the obligations of the United Kingdom unilaterally to preserve the status quo in Cyprus under Article 4 of the treaty of guarantee? Will the hon. Gentleman say something about that? Can he also give us an assessment of the degree of public support for the coup and for the Archbishop respectively? Can he say what naval and air forces the National Guard has?
  Mr. Hattersley: The drift of the hon. Gentleman's question—he will forgive me if I am misinterpreting it—is to suggest that our unilateral obligations, and I refer particularly to his implied question concerning naval and air forces, should be discharged in a military fashion. I think the implication of the question is clear. I do not believe it is the will of the House, nor do I believe that it would be in the interests of Cyprus, were our obligations to be discharged in that way at this stage.
  Mrs. Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will regard the progress to which he has referred as being two steps backwards because an original request for withdrawal is met by a suggestion of replacement? Surely it is possible that the replacement officers will be just as Fascist and unacceptable as those at present in control.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: They will be a bit fresher.
  Mrs. Jeger: Quite. They will not be so tired. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the British High Commissioner in Nicosia is not in any way, in any circumstances, receiving any of the so-called Ministers of this usurping Government. Will he instruct our Ambassador at the United Nations to ensure that any envoys who appear there are not recognised and will he confirm that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the elected leader of Cyprus is still President Makarios?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am happy to confirm that the elected and proper leader of Cyprus is President Makarios. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of acknowledging, in deed or spirit, any of the so-called Ministers of the so-called new Government. My hon. Friend probably knows that someone purporting to be a Minister of that Government knocked on the door of our High

  859
  Commission without preparation or warning. That is a situation we cannot avoid. We can certainly do what my hon. Friend suggests and make it absolutely clear that we know who are the legitimate Government of Cyprus. We will not be budged from that.
  In regard to the point about the replacement of the Cyprus National Guard Officers, I have to repeat the argument I put forward earlier. If my hon. Friend reflects on the practical implications of carrying out immediately what she suggests should be done, she may decide that that would not promote peace and stability in Cyprus during the next few days. I must rest my point there.
  Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that while caution is commendable, with every day that passes the de facto régime—that is what we must call it—is consolidating its hold in Cyprus? What is the British Government's representative in Cyprus doing at the moment? What are we doing to ensure that when those officers are replaced they are not replaced by EOKA thugs, just as bad as any Greek replacement? Can we not consider getting together with the United Nations force and arranging something whereby the United Nations officers could temporarily take over this duty?
  Mr. Hattersley: The final point raised by the hon. Gentleman is most valuable. It is one we have in mind. May I point out that the question of replacement versus withdrawal is only one of the obligations in terms of the Cyprus National Guard and the general security arrangements on the island. In the days lying ahead we must make progress. Progress must be made swiftly because the longer Mr. Sampson remains in something like control the more his organisation will assume control which it is difficult to budge. Progress must be made on more points than simply officering of the National Guard. The whole security situation and the level of forces in Cyprus, whether Turkish or Greek, are among the issues that have to be considered. While I am unable to accept the narrow point about the National Guard officers which has been made by my hon. Friends and others, I think they would agree that over the next two or three days when we discuss this matter, the discussion must go wider
  860
  than that and review the entire realities of the situation on the island.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will accede to no arrangement or solution which prevents President Makarios returning to the island as its President, and that we should not simply recognise him when he is away from Cyprus, but that we will agree to no arrangement which prevents him returning necessarily as President?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course it would be intolerable for us to say that we recognise and for us to continue to recognise, President Makarios without putting that into practical operation. We have said, and we have instructed our representative in New York to continue to say, that President Makarios goes to the United Nations today as the elected Head of the Cyprus Government, and that he is the only head of Cyprus it is proper for the United Nations to hear. In this way I hope that we can put into operation and make it the principle that he is the elected head of that country and that there is no other.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I support what the Minister said about the need for a comprehensive settlement going far beyond the question of the Cyprus National Guard, and I hope if the Government have the opportunity they will be able to collect together the three parties to the treaty. I am sure that that is the way to find a comprehensive settlement. But for those hon. Members who are anxious about the Cyprus National Guard may I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the situation over the next few days? There are 10,000 members of the Cyprus National Guard, and that makes a very formidable force. Without officers anything could happen in the island, and the force must be officered for the time being, although a comprehensive settlement should deal with the issue.
  Mr. Thorpe: I agree about the question of the Cyprus National Guard being one of many issues, but does the Minister not agree that for the Turkish people this is an inflammatory issue and that nothing short of complete withdrawal will avert the very real risk of a Turkish invasion? May I take up the point referred to by the hon. Member for

  861
  Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), that if the main problem is providing officers, why should we not immediately, through our permanent representative at the United Nations, suggest that the National Guard be put under the officers of the UN forces already there?
  Mr. Hatterlsey: This is one of the issues which are very important to the Turkish community in Cyprus and to the Turkish Government, but it is only one of the issues, and the Turks described to my right hon. Friend five imperatives among which the position of the Cyprus National Guard appeared. The right hon. Gentleman makes a point of some substance about the United Nations replacement, and we shall pursue that with all speed.
  Mr. John Ellis: Why does my hon. Friend think the Turks will and should accept a situation in which Greece has taken an arbitrary action through these officers, in which the Turks have lost all points of the game and in which all the conventions have been flouted? Why should they not, and why will they not, resort to violence in this situation? It is unacceptable to many hon. Members to see one gang with blood on their hands being replaced by another gang carrying out the same policies which are inimical to the interests of many people in the island, particularly the Turks.
  Mr. Hattersley: We think that the Turkish Government should not resort to force because we do not want many people, innocent and otherwise, to be killed in Cyprus in the next few days or weeks. Our hope must be that we can restore a situation which is just to both communities and acceptable to the international community without an outbreak of violence. That is the rule which governs our consideration of how to deal with the Cyprus National Guard in the next few days. That must now be our judgment and our principle.
  I understand my hon. Friend's point that the resentment in the Turkish Government and the Turkish community is in many ways justified and in most ways understandable, and I hope that the Turks know we share many of the views they hold and that we want to restore a just and adequate system to Cyprus. That must be done without bloodshed and violence, because that is the right way.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  CONSUMER CREDIT BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CONSUMER CREDIT BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      DETERMINATION ETC. BY DIRECTOR
      The Director may vary or revoke any determination or direction made or given by him under this Act (other than Part III, or Part III as applied by section 148).—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.25 a.m.
      The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this clause we may also discuss Government amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18.
      Mr. Williams: The clause provides desirable extra flexibility for the director in his power to make various determinations. It is conceivable that it would be in everyone's interest at certain times that he might wish to vary or revoke those determinations, and the clause makes that possible. The amendments we are discussing with the clause are paving amendments for it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR BUSINESS CONSUMERS
      (1) The Director, on an application made by a credit reference agency, may direct that this section shall apply to the agency if he is satisfied—

      (a) that compliance with section 159 in the case of consumers who carry on a business would adversely affect the service provided to its customers by the agency, and

      (b) that, having regard to the methods employed by the agency and to any other relevant factors, it is probable that consumers carrying on a business would not be prejudiced by the making of the direction.

      (2) Where an agency to which this section applies receives a request, particulars and a fee under section 159(1) from a consumer who carries on a business, and section 159(3) does not apply, the agency, instead of complying with section 159, may elect to deal with the matter under the following subsections.
      (3) Instead of giving the consumer a copy of the file, the agency shall within the prescribed period give notice to the consumer that it is proceeding under this section, and by notice give the consumer such information included in or based on entries in the file as the Director may direct, together with a statement in the prescribed form of the consumer's rights under subsection (4) and (5).
      (4) If within 28 days after receiving the information given him under subsection (3), or such longer period as the Director may allow, the consumer—

      (a) gives notice to the Director that he is dissatisfied with the information, and

      (b) satisfies the Director that he has taken such steps in relation to the agency as may be reasonable with a vie wto removing the cause of his dissatisfaction, and

      (c) pays the Director the specified fee,

      the Director may direct the agency to give the Director a copy of the file, and the Director may disclose to the consumer such of the information on the file as the Director thinks fit.
      (5) Section 160 applies with any necessary modifications to information given to the consumer under this section as it applies to information given under section 159.
      (6) If an agency making an election under subsection (2) fails to comply with subsection (3) or (4) it commits an offence—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Williams: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this clause we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 25.
      Mr. Williams: The clause attempts to meet points which were made in Committee by the Opposition and which were contained in submissions at various stages from the credit reference agencies. The intention is not to give complete exemptions but to provide alternative procedure for the agencies to follow when they have requests for information from business consumers. The clause will in part meet the requirements sought. We do not feel we can go as far as providing outright exemption, but it will enable the director to give a direction to provide information based on entries in the files instead of providing actual copies of the files. In the event of the customer or the complainant being dissatisfied with the
      864
      information provided by the agency, he may go to the director himself and the director can obtain a copy of the file from the agency and decide how much information it is in the consumer's interest should be disclosed to him.
      This is a reasonable compromise to meet a legitimate problem arising in relation to sources of information for the agency.
      Mr. Paul Channon: We are grateful to the Government for the steps they have taken to bring forward the clause and it is certainly an advance on the position in the Bill on Second Reading. We are grateful for the compromise. It seems most reasonable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2

      POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 2, line 21, leave not from 'Act' to 'and' in line 23.
      Mr. Speaker: With it we may also consider Government Amendment No. 2.
      Mr Maclennan: These are purely drafting amendments. The clause as it stands was criticised in Committee because it was felt that it was not entirely clear that the Secretary of State could not give a specific direction to the director on a matter on which there was provision for appeal to the Secretary of State. These amendments should remove that uncertainty.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
      `(7) References in subsection (2) to the functions of the Director under this Act do not include the making of a determination to which section 41 or 151 (appeals from Director to Secretary of State) applies'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

    Clause 3
      SUPERVISION BY COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 2, line 44, leave out '2(2)' and insert '8(2)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 10

      RUNNING-ACCOUNT CREDIT AND FIXED-SUM CREDIT
      11.30 a.m.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 5, line 18, after '(iii)', insert:
      'at the time the agreement is made'.
      I said in Committee that I would consider representations. We recognise that there is some difficulty for the banks and others in the probability concept in the clause. Having considered the arguments and discussed them with the draftsmen, we feel that it is possible to meet the difficulty without reducing consumer protection.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15

      CONSUMER HIRE AGREEMENTS
      Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 in page 7 line 7 at beginning insert:
      'having regard to the terms of the agreement as they apply at the time of its making and to the circumstances then prevailing'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to add an element of certainty in what we recognise may be an improved situation, but it is one which does not yet have the clarity we seek.
      The Bill assumes the test of the status of the consumer. It defines by saying that all those who are not bodies corporate are consumers, which brings into the Bill a number of people who carry out normal commercial transactions, such as accountants, solicitors and self-employed businessmen. That seems to be in conflict with some of the considerations in the draft legislation which is being produced in Europe and which in due course we shall have to consider. We shall have to bring some unity to it.
      The European legislation assumes a different sort of test—the purpose of the loan test as opposed to the status of the customer. I am an officer of the Equipment Leasing Association, which believes that that would have been a more satisfactory and acceptable way to define commercial transactions. Under the
      866
      European legislation, it is simple to exempt many transactions which are under the scope of the Bill. We have to deal with the Bill as it is, bearing in mind the future European considerations.
      Our amendment is designed to remove from the Bill the uncertainty, particularly in the case of variable rate agreements. They can be illustrated by those which have variation clauses referring to changes in corporation tax. The effect is that if there is a change in corporation tax there is a change in the rate and the rentals which are thereby charged. It is difficult to assess what the total rentals will be and what the amounts payable might be. There can also be provision for changes in the cost of money. That, too, at the outset of the transaction presents an element of doubt.
      Such changes are beyond the control of both the lessor and the lessee. They cannot look into the crystal ball and say that they control these factors. If that is the type of transaction being entered into, there will be a doubt whether the amount of the agreement is likely to exceed £5,000. That puts in question whether the agreement will be subject to the Bill.
      The doubt can easily be resolved by using what has been termed the outset concept, defining at the beginning whether under the terms of the agreement, at the time it is made, it comes under the Bill. I believe that it has been suggested that the concept is already within the provisions of the Bill. But subsection 1(c) states that the agreement does not require the hirer to make payments exceeding £5,000. If the variation clauses to which I have referred exist, contingencies can occur, dependent upon future events, to vary the total payments and bring about the element of uncertainty to which I refer.
      The amendment, by having regard to the time of making the agreement, produces certainty where there is doubt. I understand that in discussions on the matter the view has been expressed that amendments might be contemplated if it were found that there was a need for more legislation after the Bill had been put to the test. I believe that it is better to accept the substance of the amendment and remove the element of doubt now.
      Mr. Alan Williams: We have covered the matter in consultation and in discussion in Committee. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I intimated in consultation that if the industry proved to be right, against all the advice we are receiving, we should have to meet the problem at a later stage. However, the balance of advice to us is that the proposition I put to the Committee is correct and that the propositions put forward by the industry are incorrect.
      If I accepted the amendment, it would open up a considerable loophole. For example, I have been told that to evade the provisions of the Bill where a hirer wanted to hire for only four years at £1,000 a year, therefore coming within the scope of the Bill, it would be possible for the owner to insist on making an agreement for 10 years at £1,000 a year, but with a term allowing the hirer to terminated the agreement at any time after the first year. That would enable the hirer to turn the agreement into a four-year agreement at any time after the first year, but then there could be a dispute as to whether it was originally within the scope of the legislation.
      As our legal advice is that the hazard envisaged by the industry does not exist, but that the hazards I have just suggested of creating loopholes against the interests of the consumer do exist, I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that on balance I must still oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Dodsworth: I understand that if it is subsequently found in the courts that the industry's interpretation is correct there is the possibility of amending legislation, and in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16

      EXEMPT AGREEMENTS
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'where' to end of line 13.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to consider Government Amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Williams: The amendments deal with a highly technical point raised since
      868
      the Committee stage by the Building Societies Association. I apologise to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) if the objective is not immediately clear. I am sure that if he read my brief he would still find that it was not immediately clear. It is a perfectly reasonable point that has been drawn to our attention. The association says that subsection 1(b), as amended in Committee, does not cover the situation in which societies lend the premium for an insurance company guarantee, made under pre-existing arrangements with the company concerned, when the transaction is in respect of a house being built on land already owned by the debtor.
      We took measures to ensure that where the transaction involved land the situation would be covered, but the building societies reasonably pointed out that there is the probability that where the land is already owned by the person who is borrowing to build on it the situation would not be covered without the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      I trust that the situation is absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 7, line 24 leave out from ' Act' to end of line 38 and insert—
      (1A) Subsection (1) applies only where the agreement is—

      (a) a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement financing—

      (i) the purchase of land, or

      (ii) the provision of dwellings on any land, and secured by a land mortgage on that land; or

      (b) a debtor-creditor agreement secured by any land mortgage; or

      (c) a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement financing a transaction which is a linked transaction in relation to—

      (i) an agreement falling within paragraph (a), or

      (ii) an agreement falling within paragraph (b) financing—

      (aa) the purchase of any land, or

      (bb) the provision of dwellings on any land, and secured by a land mortgage on the land referred to in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, the land referred to in sub-paragraph (ii).—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

      Mr. Paul Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 13 leave out subsection (5).

      869
      We had some discussion on this matter in Committee. As the clause stands, both under this Government and under the previous Government I must concede that powers are taken by the Secretary of State to exempt certain of the nationalised industries from the provisions of the Bill. I ask why that should be necessary and whether the Secretary of State intends to use the powers given under the Bill. If it is right that there should be justice in the private sector and truth in lending, surely it is right that the nationalised industries should be covered by the Bill's provisions.
      I think that it is common ground that there are many areas of the nationalised industries in which consumers would in future like more rights rather than fewer rights. I do not see why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have the power to exempt the nationalised industries. If the nationalised industries are to have consumer hire agreements of the kind that would normally be regulated under this measure if undertaken by anyone else, surely it is reasonable that they should have to comply with precisely the same rules as anyone else in the community.
      I do not wish to put the nationalised industries in a worse position. On the other hand, I do not see why they should be in a favoured position. The Bill seeks to protect the consumer. If it is right that certain constraints be put upon other industries, why is it not right that the nationalised industries should not also be included? For example, what about the offices of the electricity and gas industries where equipment such as refrigerators and cookers are sold? Surely it is right that the Bill, where it is applicable to the nationalised industries—I suspect that it is applicable in many examples—should not exempt the nationalised industries. It may be that the Secretary of State has no intention of making such an order—we accept that that is understandable—but I do not see why it is necessary to have these powers in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I would much prefer to have them taken out. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on this matter.
      11.45 a.m.
      Mr. Alan Williams: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this provision was in the Bill that was put forward by the
      870
      previous administration. It is nice to look back on those three and a half years and find one measure on which I can agree with them.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: And the Fair Trading Act.
      Mr. Williams: The hon. Lady is correct; we supported that Act as well. Let us spell out as clearly as we can the limitations of what is intended. This is an enabling power. It does not give the exemption. It enables the Secretary of State to exempt where it is considered appropriate. The hon. Gentleman says that it would be intolerable if the electricity showrooms, for example, were not covered by the same rules as private traders in the High Street. I accept that completely. I would never introduce legislation to give the nationalised industries in that sort of commercial undertaking an immunity which I believe no firm should have in its relationships with the public.
      I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is no intention that the nationalised industries shall be given any special privileges or that the consumer will lose any protection. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some of the nationalised industries by their very nature—for example, gas, electricity and water—essentially operate by a metering system. The need, therefore, is to exempt metering. If it were demonstrated to the Secretary of State that the exemption was being used in some way prejudicial to the consumer, the Secretary of State would be able and, I am sure, willing to tell the industry that if it did not put right any misdemeanour the exemption could and would be withdrawn.
      I now turn to telecommunications. We have in mind telecommunications equipment. If the exemptions are not made, it seems that virtually every household in the country will have to have a separate written agreement for such things as meters for various services which are supplied into the household. That would be required although there is no evidence of any abuse that cannot already be remedied. It would be a major bureaucratic operation for a small objective.
      As Conservative hon. Members continually berate the nationalised industries and allege all manner of inefficiencies

      871
      against them, I trust that they are not now wishing to impose an unnecessary administrative burden upon them. The system has worked satisfactorily until now. There is discretionary power for the Secretary of State to withdraw the exemption in the event of any evidence being brought forward to indicate that the situation was not working satisfactorily.
      In exercising the power of exemption, the Secretary of State is also answerable to the House. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be free to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State any abuses which they feel could arise from the exemption. This is an item on which, surprisingly, both administrations are in agreement. Some may say that that is a good reason for looking at it again. In fact, I considered the matter after our discussions in Committee. I am glad to say that I am still convinced that my judgment was right. It is unvaried and it coincides with that of my predecessor.
      Mr. Tim Renton: The Minister of State says that both administrations have been in agreement about bringing the nationalised industries within the scope of the Bill.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Let us be clear. It is not a matter of bringing them within the scope of the Bill. They are within its scope. We are talking about a limited exemption for meters and telecommunications equipment. The nationalised industries are covered as is private industry.
      Mr. Renton: I accept the Minister's point. All I wished to do at the outset was to remind him that in Standing Committee D on 4th December 1973, when he was speaking from the Opposition benches, he queries whether these particular operations of the public authorities should be brought within the scope of the Bill. He said at that time that he would like to look further into the matter and to give it more consideration.
      I must declare an interest, as I did in Committee, in that I am connected with a British-based bank that conducts a great part of its operations abroad. I believe that the main point we should consider regarding the nationalised industries and possible exemptions from the Bill is the rôle of the Director General.
      872
      This matter was raised in Committee on the Fair Trading Bill in March 1973. It was then emphasised by a number of my hon. Friends that it was highly desirable that the Director General should have as much independence as possible in relation to the rôles and duties that he has to perform. If we accept that all the metering regulations and agreements of the nationalised industries fall within the scope of the Bill, if they are to be exempted it will be by the Director General having consultations with the Secretary of State. That is bound to diminish the independence of the Director General. That is an important principle which hon. Members on both sides of the House have wished the Government to bear in mind. It is primarily on that basis that my hon. Friends and I would ask the Minister of State to think carefully about the amendment.
      A further point hinges round the parlous state of the nationalised industries. I am sure many of my hon. Friends have had more letters from constituents complaining, for example, about electricity, gas and water charges than on any other subject. The man in the street feels that it is necessary that he should be protected from the nationalised industries as he sees them responsible for his gas, electricity and water bills. It is to try to give additional protection to the consumer against these monopolistic bodies that we put forward the amendment.
      It was only yesterday that the Prime Minister emphasised at Question Time the parlous financial condition of the nationalised industries. He spoke of the need to raise another £1,400 million in revenue for them. Therefore, the consumer should have every reason to be worried about the effect of the activities of the nationalised industries on him and on his purse. It is a question not only of what the nationalised industries are doing today but of the possible increase in the scope of the nationalised industries.
      I wish to refer to the note on the current work programme of the Department of Industry issued by the Secretary of State for Industry in which there is mention of the National Enterprise Board. On page 3 the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the board should act
      "to reduce the growth of monopoly power by inserting public enterprise competition where this is needed".

      873
      The matter, in the words of "Alice in Wonderland", becomes "curiouser and curiouser". It is hard to see how the growth of monopoly power was exercised by the nationalised industries can be reduced by inserting more public enterprise competition.
      There is the possibility of the scope of the nationalised industries being extended, and there is also the question of the serious financial condition in which they find themselves. For both reasons, the consumer needs to be protected against and in relation to the nationalised industries and what they may do under the Bill. I therefore support the amendment.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I was surprised at the Minister of State's grudging approbation for some Conservative measures passed during the last Parliament in view of the number of Conservative measures which the present Government have seen fit to reintroduce in this Parliament.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was right to draw attention to the fact that the consumers of the goods and services of nationalised industries are among the least satisfied of consumers, partly because of the nature of the nationalised industries. We do not blame the employees of the nationalised industries or those responsible for running them, but it is a fact that there is not the discipline of competition in this sector. I too receive numerous letters from constituents on these matters. I shall not bore the House by going into individual cases but I should point out that some of them involve credit agreements to buy major domestic appliances. I should like the Minister of State to assure us that agreements of that type come within the scope of the Bill.
      We are somewhat reassured to hear that the Director General is enabled by the Bill, in a negative way, not to exempt the supply of goods activities of the nationalised industries. He is given a similar power in Section 16 of the Fair Trading Act. I should like the Minister to confirm that the powers in the Fair Trading Act to vary through the Secretary of State are introduced in the Bill. I should also like him to confirm that consumer credit agreements with nationalised industries are in no way inhibited.
      874
      The Minister raised the question of metering. Some water boards allow caravan site operators to collect water rates for them to operate the metering. The equipment is not kept in good condition and, therefore, water is wasted and the metering is incorrect. It would be unsa metering is incorrect. It would be unsatisfactory if a credit agreement either between the consumer and the site operator or between the consumer and the water board could not be dealt with in this Bill.
      I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us further assurances on those matters.
      12 noon.
      Mr. Alan Williams: May I say, with permission, that we have peripherally skirted the amendment while procedurally keeping one big toe on the correct line.
      As I have already said, the nationalised industries are covered by the Bill. The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) specifically asked about their credit activities. This is so, and it is right that it should be so. That is our intention, and that is one of the objectives of the legislation.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) spoke about a reduction in the independence of the Director General. I do not accept what he has said. No reduction in independence is envisaged for the credit commissioner. In deciding what exemptions should be permitted, the Secretary of State would consult the Director General to ensure that his point of view was heard. If he had evidence which suggested abuse—and hon. Members know that the present Director General would confirm this to be the case—he would make the point forcefully to the Minister.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to what he described as the parlous state of the nationalised industries. We discovered a £1,500 million deficit which had been concealed by the Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may mutter about it, but there was a deficit of £1,500 million and the senior colleagues of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who was a Minister, indicated in small print that they would have to deal with it in a post-election situation.
      The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester said that the public needed

      875
      protection from the nationalised industries. In so far as that is so, they will get protection under the Bill. However, I ask her to bear in mind that the main targets of the legislation of which she is so proud—the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act—and of our Trade Descriptions Act and of the Bill we are discussing are not the nationalised industries, but what the Leader of the Opposition has called the ugly face of capitalism. It is from the activities of capitalism that the need for consumer protection has arisen so massively and it is those activities which have prompted the procession of consumer protection legislation through the House.
      Now that we have had our little political parade of the nationalisation issue, perhaps we can return to having the sort of amicable and constructive discussion that we had in Committee.
      Mr. Channon: I do not know why the Minister of State should have sought to broaden the argument. I did not know that it was in order on this Bill to debate the deficits of the nationalised industries. I rebut the Minister's argument, and I can amplify my rebuttal on some other occasion.
      All that my hon. Friends and I are saying is that the powers given to the Secretary of State are very wide. She can by order provide
      "that this Act shall not regulate consumer hire agreements"
      if the owner is a body corporate. The Minister of State has assured us that the right hon. Lady will not fully use the powers. That is partially satisfactory, although we do not think that it goes far enough.
      However, as the Minister has given some assurance, I should not wish to press the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 19

      LINKED TRANSACTIONS
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 5, after "agreement"), insert
      'of which it does not form part'.
      This is a clarificatory amendment. A credit sale agreement is often one docu-
      876
      ment selling goods on credit. Strictly speaking, we are talking of two transactions: first, an agreement to obtain credit and, secondly, an agreement to buy goods. But they are embodied in a single document. It is not the intention that they should be covered by the provisions relating to linked transactions. A linked transaction is not a sale of goods on credit in which both transactions are financed and agreed in the same document.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23

      AUTHORISATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
      12 noon.
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 14, leave out from 'canvassing' to end of line 15 and insert:
      'off trade premises of debtor-creditor-supplier agreements or regulated consumer hire agreements'.
      This amendment corrects an oversight which occurred when the provision was being amended in Committee by the deletion of "regulated" and the insertion of the words "debtor-creditor-supplier". That amendment rightly limited the provision for licences covering the canvassing off trade premises of regulated consumer credit agreements to debtor-creditor-supplier agreements. It is not unlawful to canvass regulated consumer hire agreements off trade premises, and provision is necessary for licences covering the canvassing of such agreements. The amendment is intended to rectify the position and clarify it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      LICENSEE TO BE A FIT PERSON
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 12, line 41, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
      This is a drafting Amendment remedying an omission when the references to "the controller" of a body corporate were altered in Committee to "a controller" of a body corporate. The amendment brings Clause 25 into line with the usage elsewhere in the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 35

      THE REGISTER
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 18, line 23, leave out 'of inspection'.
      Clause 35(4) permits the director to determine that the right of inspection conferred by Clause 35(3)(a) shall be exercisable in relation to a copy of the register instead of or in addition to the original. It is now considered that there is a flaw in this in that Clause 35(3)(a) entitles people to take copies of entries in the register as well as to inspect the register.
      By deleting the words "of inspection", the Amendment makes it clear that the public will be entitled to exercise both aspects of the right conferred by Clause 35(3)(a)—first, inspection, and, secondly, taking copies of entries—in relation to a copy of the register.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42

      FURTHER APPEAL ON POINT OF LAW
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 22, line 41, after 'business', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 12, in page 22, line 44, leave out from 'State' to end of line 48 and insert:
      'on an appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by a company registered in Northern Ireland or by any other person whose principal or prospective principal place of business in the United Kingdom is in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 49
      PROHIBITION OF CANVASSING DEBTOR CREDITOR AGREEMENTS OFF TRADE PREMISES
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 25, line 38, leave out from 'debtors' to end of line 40.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 57

      WITHDRAWAL FROM PROSPECTIVE AGREEMENT
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
      878
      This again is the result of a discussion in Committee. The Opposition argued the case for the Finances Houses Association and I thought that there was a fair point to be met. We made certain changes in Committee in relation to the consumer as to what would be the initial date under the legislation, and we thought that the receipt seemed to be the appropriate provision for the consumer. But it seems equally obvious that, if we are to accept that in relation to the consumer interest involved, we should make a parallel adjustment as far as the trade is concerned. This amendment puts both on the same basis.
      Mr. Chanson: We are grateful for the amendment, which is an improvement to the Bill. In order to save time, I will say now that the Government have made a number of concessions and we are grateful to all of them. I shall not rise on each occasion to say so. I will now express our comprehensive gratitude for these Amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 60

      FORM AND CONTENT OF AGREEMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 29, line 41, leave out 'waive or vary the requirement' and insert:
      'direct that the requirement be waived or varied'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 69

      NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 33, line 43, at end insert—
      ' (1A) In the case of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for restricted-use credit financing—

      (a) the doing of work or supply of goods to meet an emergency, or

      (b) the supply of goods which, before service of the notice of cancellation, had by the act of the debtor or his relative become incorporated in any land or thing not comprised in the agreement or any linked transaction,

      subsection (1) shall apply with the substitution of the following for paragraph (i)—

      "(i) to cancel only such provisions of the agreement and any linked transaction as—

      (aa) relate to the provision of credit, or

      879

      (bb) require the debtor to pay an item in the total charge for credit, or

      (cc) subject the debtor to any obligation other than to pay for the doing of the said work, or the supply of the said goods".

      (1B) Except so far as is otherwise provided, references in this Act to the cancellation of an agreement or transaction do not include a case within subsection (1A)'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 73 and 75.
      Mr. Williams: This Amendment again meets points argued previously and raised in particular by the Mail Order Traders Association. It deals with cases where a debtor cancels a credit agreement after the goods to which it relates have been supplied to him and after he has himself fixed the goods into land or into something else in such a way that they cannot readily be returned to the firm.
      Originally, there was to have been no redress whatever for the mail order operators, but I promised in Committee that I would meet anyone who wished to come and see me about the matter. I had a constructive meeting with the mail order traders and I felt that they presented a valid point. I have therefore made this change in relation to goods fixed to land and so on. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) will recall the precise terminology. The same provisions have been made in relation to an emergency.
      Accordingly the amendment provides in effect that where a debtor cancels a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for restricted-use credit financing the supply of goods after he has incorporated them in any land or thing, the debtor shall remain liable to pay for the goods themselves, but not any charge for credit, because the credit agreement has been cancelled.
      This goes a long way to meet the objections of the mail order traders, and to my personal knowledge they have not come back with any complaint since I said that I would try to meet their case in this way.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We are extremely grateful for this concession, which will be helpful. Will the fact that the consumer will not be able to cancel such an agreement in any way interfere with the rights under the Sale of Goods
      880
      Act? Is it also the case that where the goods have been fixed by the mail order supplier himself, and therefore are not merchantable, it will not be a cancellable agreement? Where they are not fixed but are incorporated—for example, like paint on a wall—would that be a cancellable agreement?
      Mr. Williams: The Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act provisions would not be affected. The duty is specific in relation to the quality of goods. I made this clear to the mail order traders. They made the counter-point that of course they allow the customer to have the goods on approval so that the customer has time to consider whether the goods meet his needs and whether they are of adequate quality.
      I am sorry, but I did not quite get the second point raised by the hon. Lady.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: My second point concerned where goods have not been fixed by the mail order suppliers but where they have been incorporated beyond the point where they could be returned.
      Mr. Williams: That, too, is intended to be covered. There is an amendment later dealing specifically with paint, petrol and other items.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 70

      CANCELLATION: RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID BY DEBTOR OF HIRER
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 35, line 6, leave out from 71 ' to end of line 10.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
      Mr. Williams: This amendment deletes paragraph (b) of subsection (1). It is consequential on Government Amendment No. 76 to Clause 69, to which the House has just agreed and which introduces new subsections (1A) and (1B). Amendment No. 81 is no longer necessary following Amendment No. 76. These new subsections have the effect of preserving a debtor's rights in relation to goods or services he has received to meet an emergency, notwithstanding that he has served a notice of cancellation in

      881
      respect of a credit agreement relating to them.
      Mr. Channon: I do not quite understand this. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Amendment No. 81 is no longer necessary? Is he not now intending to move it?
      Mr. Williams: Amendment No. 81 leaves out certain provisions, and those were the provisions which I said were no longer necessary.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 81, in page 35, leave out lines 14 to 17.
      No. 82, in page 35, line 26, at end insert:
      '(9) so far only as is necessary to give effect to section 69(1A), this section applies to an agreement or transaction within that subsection as it applies to a cancelled agreement or transaction'.—[Mr. Alan Williams]

    Clause 71

      CANCELLATION: REPAYMENT OF CREDIT
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 35, line 27, at end insert `consumer credit'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will also be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 72.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Both amendments are drafting matters. Amendment No. 71 applies only to credit agreements and not to hire agreements. At present this is not expressly said. The amendment makes sure that there can be no doubt about the situation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 35, line 31, after ' regulated ' insert consumer credit '.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 72

      CANCELLATION: RETURN OF GOODS
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 37, line 22, at end insert:
      '(aa) goods which by their nature are consumed by use and which, before the cancellation, were so consumed, or'.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will also be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
      Mr. Williams: These amendments are drafting matters to clarify what is meant in Clause 72(9)(c) by goods which "were consumed". The phrase is intended to cover not only goods that are eaten but goods consumed in other ways—such as petrol, which is consumed in cars, or paint, which is consumed by being daubed—at least in my household—rather than in any artistic way on walls or woodwork. Wallpaper comes within the provision. The amendments are intended to make it clear that such goods are covered by the phrase "consumed in use". Amendment No. 85 is consequential.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further amendments made: No. 84, in page 37, line 24, leave out 'were consumed or'.
      No. 85, in page 37, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 74

      EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FROM PART V
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 39, line 4, at end insert:
      'or
      (c) a debtor-creditor agreement to finance the making of such payments arising on, or connected with, the death of a person as may be prescribed.'
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient also to take Government Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 77.
      Mr. Williams: The amendments meet a point raised in Committee on behalf of the clearing banks. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) then dealt with the problems of estate duty in regard to banks and the need to make loans in those circumstances. I promised to look at the matter and see whether I could accommodate the point. We have tabled an amendment the intention of which I am sure is fully understood by the hon. Gentleman. If there are any questions, I shall deal with them; but I think that the amendment goes a

      883
      substantial way to deal with the requirement.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 39, line 7, after '(1)(b)' insert ' or (c)'.
      No. 18, in page 39, line 13, leave out from 'debtors' to end of line 14.
      No. 19, in page 39, line 16, after (1)(b) 'insert' or (c)'.
      No. 77, in page 39, line 19, after '(1)(b)', insert or (c)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 75

      LIABILITY OF CREDITORS FOR BREACHES BY SUPPLIER
      12.15 p.m.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 39, line 27, leave out 'like' and insert 'joint
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 67, in page 39, line 28, leave out 'accordingly'.
      Amendment No. 68, in page 39, line 33, at end insert:
      "and any loss of interest under subsection (6)'.
      Amendment No. 69, in page 39, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
      '(5) Where under a credit-token agreement the creditor is not the supplier, the creditor shall be liable and the debtor may claim against the creditor under subsection (1) only where the debtor can show that he has attempted to obtain redress from the supplier, and a period of not less than four weeks has elapsed since that attempt was commenced.'
      Amendment No. 70, in page 39, line 44, at end insert:
      '(6) Where the debtor obtains judgment under this section, the debtor shall be relieved from any liability to pay interest to the creditor on the amount of that judgment as from the date the attempt to obtain redress from the supplier was commenced.'
      Mr. Renton: In answering points made in the Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said he felt it necessary to establish that credit card companies were jointly and severally liable with suppliers in cases dealt with under Clause 75. The Minister wanted to make it clear that there should not be a primary liability for the debtor to have redress on the supplier, but that the creditor
      884
      should stand pari passu jointly and severally liable with the supplier where people sought redress.
      We have tabled those amendments to deal with the situation, but at the same time we seek to cover the situation where the debtor, the customer, may well be likely first to go back to the creditor, the bank, rather than to go first to the supplying company. We believe that this is a mistake from the point of view of the consumer as well as of the creditor. If a customer has bought goods and used his credit card to buy a deep freeze and that piece of equipment goes wrong, it is right that to gain redress he should go back to the supplying company, the deep freeze concern, which will have a technical service department available and will know the ins and outs of the deep freeze sold to the creditor. That firm should be able to deal with the complaint in a proper, technical and speedy manner. We have tabled these amendments to make certain that the first recourse of the debtor, the customer, is to the supplier rather than to the bank, the creditor.
      It will be clear from the amendments, particularly No. 69, which in many ways is the most important, that the creditor is accepting liability. The wording of that amendment is
      "the creditor shall be liable…"
      but, none the less, the debtor is put in the position that he should first obtain redress from the supplier; namely the company servicing the facility, the technical company. It is only after that redress has not worked that he is in the position of going back on a "jointly and severally liable" basis to the creditor.
      In Committee the Minister referred to the credit card companies being in much the same position as are hire-purchase lenders, but surely they are in a different position. The hire-purchase lender often has owned the goods concerned and has good knowledge of them before he sells them to the customer. The credit card company is in a quite different position. It has never owned the goods but provides facilities purely in substitution for purchases by cash, thus enabling the card holder to acquire a large number of goods from many outlets. Against that background such companies do not know the goods, but are providing facilities for the consumer in place of cash. We hope

      885
      that the amendment will be helpful to the consumer and seek to put redress where it should lie—namely, with the supplying company.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more helpful reply than I gave him in Committee. He made the point that credit card companies, unlike hire-purchase companies, do not own the goods. Nobody suggests they do, but nevertheless they decide which shops and traders will be allowed to make use of the credit card facility. They are, in a sense, putting the stamp of approval on certain traders. They carry a certain responsibility since they have a share in the deal so to speak.
      Mr. Tim Renton: Does the Minister consider that objection to be feasible? Some credit companies have responsibility in relation to the shops they allow to accept their credit cards, but there is a wide chain throughout the country. We are dealing with a problem involving technical matters where a piece of electrical equipment goes wrong and where only the supplying company will know how to deal with that technical matter. We suggest by our amendments that the proper place to which the customer should have recourse for his own sake is not a bank, which simply lends the money, but the supplying company which knows the goods and has the technicians and facilities to put the goods right.
      Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless put to him the argument, which seems to have little weight on the other side of the House nowadays, that it was his own Ministers who felt that our proposal was the appropriate way of dealing with things.
      The fundamental difficulty is that the average consumer—this was discussed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and myself, when discussing small claims courts—is nervous of legal action and does not want to get involved in difficult litigation. He is afraid of a court action. If we agree with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting it would mean that a consumer, far from having to undertake an unwanted legal action on only one occasion, may have to do so on a number of occasions. It may be, for instance, that the trader involved has
      886
      gone into liquidation, or that the initial trader cannot be traced.
      It is greatly to the convenience of the consumer that there should be a joint litigation. I assume, as a non-lawyer, that that is the appropriate term. This is clear when it is borne in mind that there is an indemnity under the Bill so that in the event of there being a default of the supplier the credit card company has an indemnity against that supplier. The position of the credit card company has been covered as far as we can go, but, on balancing all the problems so far as the consumer and the firm are concerned, we believe that it is right to minimise the amount of possible legal action which the consumer should have to take. The creditor is, after all, a party to the deal in which he gets a share of the profit, or a discount, as he may call it, and as such he has certain responsibility. We feel that this responsibility is fully met by the present arrangement, but the creditor then has a fall-back position of being able to get protection vis-à-vis the supplier, because the supplier will want to sustain a source of credit for his customer.
      One would have thought that the credit card company was more likely to get an expeditious and a fair response from the trade than was the small consumer.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I am not happy with the Minister's arguments. I do not think that what he says is likely to lead to a lessening of litigation. The amendments were designed to meet and went a long way towards meeting, the Minister's point about joint and several liability. But I have rehearsed the amendments previously, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 82

      VARIATION OF AGREEMENTS
      Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 43, line 53, at end insert:
      'and any action by the creditor stopping the right to further drawings under the credit shall not be treated as a separate agreement or as providing fixed-sum credit'.
      This amendment, which has been suggested to us by the clearing banks, is

      887
      primarily designed to deal with what can only be described as a disagreement between leading counsel on both sides. The Minister believes that the point made by the clearing banks is unnecessary and he has received legal advice to that effect, but the clearing banks are not of the same opinion.
      The amendment is intended to deal with a situation in which, if a bank has given an overdraft to a customer and he overdraws his facility on it—perhaps having issued cheques against uncleared cheques which he has paid in and which are later returned on a refer-to-drawer basis—the bank may decide that enough is enough and that the overdraft cannot continue. The overdraft is then stopped, but at the same time the bank says to the customer that in order to help him it will not take him to court or ask him to repay immediately but will enable him to open a new current account which he must keep in credit. He will be told that he must pay his monthly salary cheques into this account and that sums from it must be transferred to the overdraft account which will be frozen. I am told that this is normal practice by banks.
      The banks are worried that the frozen overdraft account, which has ceased to be a running account, will become a regulated agreement for which documentation is needed. The customer, who in such circumstances is clearly in difficulties, may refuse to sign the documentation which the bank presents him with. He could claim that this involved an agreement which had gone wrong and which was not within the provisions of the Bill, and he could endeavour not to repay.
      I envisage that the clearing banks, because of the legal advice they have received, will, instead of taking the action I have described, insist, as they have the right to do under the Bill, on the overdraft being repaid as soon as possible. That would be a serious disadvantage to the customer because he would not be likely to have funds to repay and may have to turn to another source of credit to whom he may not be known. In many cases it would be better for the customer if the overdraft could be frozen and a new current account set up, and kept in credit, from which the overdraft is repaid.
      888
      I remind the House that Mark Twain said that a banker was a fellow who lent his umbrella when the sun was shining but took it away when the rain started. That is not in any way the purpose behind the amendment. The purpose is to enable the banks to continue to provide to a customer who has got into temporary difficulties the sort of alternative help which they have provided in the past, but they may not be able to provide this help unless the amendment is accepted.
      Mr. Alan Williams: We have looked at this matter again since our previous discussion, but we are still firm in our belief that the fear put forward on behalf of the banks is not justified. We do not accept that the freezing of an overdraft account changes it into some other form of agreement. It remains a running account agreement.
      The sort of situation which the hon. Gentleman envisages, where there is an agreement to set aside a certain sum and make it, in effect, a separate loan account is quite permissible. There is nothing to stop that sort of conversion. We would not wish to stop it. But when a more formalised agreement with an overdraft arrangement is set up it is right that the customer should have the necessary documentation that is normal in such circumstances. We see nothing to stop the freezing of overdrafts. That would not run against the intentions of the Bill. We see nothing to stop the desirable practice of the good management of loan accounts.
      12.30 p.m.
      Should our advice be wrong, I am sure that evidence would soon be available and we would obviously want to take account of such a situation. However, all the advice that I have from within the Department and from our own legal sources is that the banks are not justified in their concern and that the problem should not arise.
      Mr. Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as circumstances develop, this point will be solved only by litigation? If there is an area of doubt—clearly there is—surely it will end in the courts and lead to the litigation that the hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid.
      Mr. Williams: It is inevitable that the situation may arise. I defy anyone to

      889
      produce legislation and then say that it will not lead to litigation. On occasions that seems almost to be the objective of some legislation. Obviously we hope that the Government's intentions are sufficiently clear to avoid the need for litigation.
      If litigation took place and the banks were successful—in other words, if the Government's views on the precise significance of the Bill in this respect were confirmed—the matter would be resolved to absolute satisfaction. If, on the other hand, the banks lost, I should certainly expect them to talk to me or to my successor or the Director General as soon as possible. At present we feel that we must stand by the advice we have been given.
      Mr. Dodsworth: If we accept that the purpose of the Bill is to protect the consumer, as we have previously tried to make clear, our interest must be to have clarity and certainty in the legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has revealed only too clearly the areas of doubt and uncertainty in this matter. It is an alarming prospect that we should have distinguished legal opinions which are already in doubt about a matter which is not yet on the statute book. We are seeking clarity for parties. We are seeking clarity for the banks and for the consumers. If there is any possible doubt about legislation in prospect, surely it is desirable that an amendment of this kind should be accepted. The Minister suggested that we should wait and see whether something turns up and that, if it does, we should then do something about it. Here we have a tangible and constructive proposal to remove an area of doubt. I think that my hon. Friend has illustrated the need for the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 44, line 14, at end insert:
      (7) This section does not apply to a noncommercial agreement.
      This is a move to correct an error that crept into the Bill in Committee when, in the substantial redrafting of the clause, we omitted subsection (5). We still do not want the provisions governing the
      890
      variation of agreements to apply to noncommercial agreements—for example, agreements between friends.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 87

      NEED FOR DEFAULT NOTICE
      Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 46, line 21, at end insert:
      (2A) Subsection (1) applies only where—

      (a) a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the executed agreement, and

      (b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1) but so applies notwithstanding that, under the agreement, any party is entitled to terminate it before the end of the period so specified.

      The wording of the amendment is exactly the same as the Government's amendment to another clause. The wording appears in Clauses 76 to 99. It was put in by the Government in response to the points made strongly by the clearing banks that on overdrafts which, by agreement and regulation, are exempted from the Bill there should be repayment on demand.
      I know that my hon. Friend will join me in thanking the Government for accepting those amendments in Committee. If they had not been accepted, the whole ability of the banks to grant facilities for overdrafts which are available and repayable on demand would have been brought into serious doubt. If this matter had been thrown into doubt the interest costs to customers would have risen because these are the cheapest borrowing facilities available to them.
      We want the amendment added to the clause for the simple reason that in the other clauses I have mentioned repayment on demand is allowed to the bank where a customer is not in default.
      Clause 87 covers the situation where the customer is in default. In that case the bank will not have the possibility of claiming repayment on demand. This is a mind-boggling situation. It seems odd that where a customer is behaving himself in accordance with the terms of the facility granted to him the bank can claim repayment on demand, yet in circumstances, which I described earlier when moving another amendment, where the

      891
      customer may be in default the bank will not be able to claim repayment on demand.
      This could have serious effects on customers. Where the security was shares on the stock market and the bank manager saw their value falling every day—this would apply even more where the security was perishable goods—the bank would not be able to obtain the best possible value on the customer's assets that had backed the loan given to him until the seven-day notice period had expired. This could have a poor effect on the realisable value of the customer's security that had been lodged with the bank.
      In Committee the Minister's main objection to accepting that repayment on demand should be available where there was default was that there might be a computer mistake—that it might spew out information to suggest that the customer was at fault when he was not. With respect, that is a totally fallacious argument. If the computer reported that a customer was at fault when he was not and the bank consequently disposed of his security, once the fault was established the bank would have to repurchase the shares or the asset for the customer. I cannot believe that any bank in those circumstances would not act immediately in that manner. The amendment seeks to rectify that strange and anomolous position.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Perhaps I may attempt to unboggle, if there is such a term, the hon. Gentleman's mind. There are two completely different situations here. The bank covers a situation where, for example, in the case of a special deposit, it has a change in liquidity requirements and has to call in loans. That is an exigency upon the service and it is one of the hazards of that form of loan. We are dealing with the situation in which there is no monetary or economic need for the money to be called in. The loan is called in simply because the individual is in default. That being so, it is reasonable that he should have a right to remedy that default.
      The hon. Gentleman regarded the computer error argument as fallacious. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has on many occasions com-
      892
      plained about the billing procedures and the problems that arise from computer errors. I assume that the banks' computers are as "human" as any other computers and are just as likely inadvertently to throw up an error. But errors arise in several ways. A payment that is due to be made may be overlooked. Perhaps someone who was supposed to put a cheque into the account on behalf of a customer forgot to do so. To go to the extreme of calling in the loan when there may be a simple explanation and a simple remedy would be to go too far. The customer is entitled to a chance to remedy the default, especially if it is not a default but an error.
      Despite all that has been said, where there is a default of the kind envisaged by the hon. Gentleman the bank already notifies the individual of the default and does not automatically call in the loan. I suspect that we are trying to formalise an activity that most good bank managers would automatically undertake.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I agree with the Minister's last remark. In practice, when there is a default the bank will normally notify the customer and give him time to remedy it. But surely that destroys the validity of the Minister's argument. He implied that a bank, because of a change in its liquidity requirements, may suddenly wish to rearrange the ratio of security to debt. Instead of having a 50 per cent. margin, the bank might require a 100 per cent. margin. It is inconceivable that, because the bank was making an internal readjustment, it would at that moment call in an overdraft. Nor at that moment would the customer be in default because of a rearrangement of the overdraft terms.
      I come back to my basic argument that there is logical inconsistency in repayment on demand being available to the bank for customers who are not in default but not for customers who are in default.
      Mr. Alan Williams: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman is looking for logic and consistency, may I resort to a different tier of argument? It is clear that our minds to not match on morality vis-à-vis default. The amendment does not do what the hon. Gentleman wants to do. I tried to spare him this slight to his drafting capacities. The amendment refers

      893
      to the executed agreement, but the bank will not have an executed agreement for an overdraft. Even if the hon. Gentleman's argument were correct, the amendment could not be accepted, and it does not achieve what he intends to achieve.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 90

      RETAKING OF PROTECTED HIRE-PURCHASE ETC. GOODS
      Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 48, line 9, after 'apply', insert
      '(in relation to the possessor of the goods)'.
      This is a drafting amendment. It makes clear that the provision of Clause 90, which protects debtors, will also project a person in possession after the death of a debtor who has failed to go through the necessary formalities to become "the debtor".
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 97

      DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION
      12.45 p.m.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 50, line 5, after 'writing', insert 'expressly'.
      The Government amendment to Clause 173 has to a great extent met the object tions, but there is still an outstanding problem that has been expressed to us, in that Clause 97 is the only clause in which a statement can be requested but where no fee is advanced.
      The Minister of State will know that the clearing banks have said that the fee would act as a red light to them in warning them that there was a danger. If the bank manager failed to comply with subsection (1) he would not be entitled to enforce the agreement, and if he continued to fail to supply the statement he would be subject to a £50 fine.
      Nearly all local branches of banks give statements on demand or at the request of the customer at any time. If such a
      894
      request from a customer is not recognised as a request for a Clause 97-type statement, the manager could be in a difficulty and the bank might be unfairly penalised It has been suggested that the drafting is loose and could be tightened by the addition of "expressly", although a more specific amendment would have been preferable.
      I understand that the Department has given the clearing banks to understand that the type of statement envisaged is the one where the customer wants to terminate his agreement and to know the total amount of his indebtedness. As this wording is not included in subsection (1), there may be confusion and some statements may fall into the grey area.
      I am, possibly, making the Minister's argument for him. My mind, like his, is consumer oriented. It is important, too, that customers should know what sort of statement they are asking for. Perhaps the bank could supply customers with a formal printed statement of the Clause 97-type to enable them always to ask for the right type of statement, when needed, and so avoid precluding their rights. I hope that the Minister will think that the tightening up of the drafting will in no way inhibit consumers' rights. The amendment also seeks to strengthen the fundamental objective of the clause and to avoid the possibility of confusion.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I must oppose the amendment. I accept that conceivably there could be difficulty in some instances. The hon. Lady in a sense highlighted the other side of the problem when she said that the bank could have printed slips which people could sign to make clear their expressed request for such information. She and I on numerous occasions have tried to explain to others that the more legalistic the requirement imposed upon a consumer the more difficult it is for the consumer to meet that requirement. The amendment would mean that an extremely precise form of statement would be required, which would be difficult for many customers who would not realise that they had to go to the bank to acquire a slip for this purpose or that they had to put the request in so precise a form.
      It is more likely that the bank will be able to detect the meaningful application

      895
      in terms of the Bill than that the average customer will be able to put in a submission to meet absolutely the requirements of the amendment. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Lady. We have met many of the points she and her hon. Friends made in Committee on other aspects, but I prefer not to accept this amendment.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): There remains a long list of Government amendments. Does the hon. Member wish to discuss any particular amendment?
      Mr. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Subject to what my hon. Friends may have in mind, apart from Amendment No. 28 we should be prepared to take formally all the Government amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a very encouraging intervention. I shall put formally Government Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 46 and 27.

    Clause 101

      RIGHT TO TERMINATE HIRE AGREEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 53, line 9, at end insert:
      "(9) In the case of a modifying agreement, subsection (3) shall apply with the substitution, for "the making of the agreement" of "the making of the original agreement".'—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 103

      TERMINATION STATEMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 53, line 42, leave out:
      'has no knowledge of any indebtedness of the customer'
      and insert:
      'asserts that the customer is not indebted to him'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 105

      FORM AND CONTENT OF SECURITIES
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 54, line 57, leave out from "document" to end of line 2 on page 55 and insert:
      '(4A) A security instrument is not properly executed unless—

      (a) where the security is provided after, or at the time when, the regulated agreement is made, a copy of the executed agreement, together with a copy of any other document referred to in it, is given to the surety at the time the security is provided, or

      (b) where the security is provided before the regulated agreement is'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 55, line 10, leave out from "hirer" to end of line 14.
      This amendment, together with Amendment No. 29, deals with a highly technical matter relating to a legal difficulty which has been raised by the clearing banks. The Government have moved an amendment to Clause 106. I need not worry the House with the technicalities. I am sure that the Minister of State will understand them. But the banks take the view that what the Government have put forward does not meet in full the difficulties which may rise. The banks have taken counsel's opinion and put forward this amendment in the hope that the Government may be able to meet their point. I do not know whether that will be possible.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I hope that I shall not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much if I say that I am willing to accept both amendments, as long as both are moved. I cannot accept them separately, but as a combination they commend themselves to us and we gladly accept them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 55, line 18, leave out from "executed" to end of line 20.—[Mr. Channon.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, which appears to have been given, perhaps I may put the Government amendments formally. I should notify the House that there are some manuscript amendments, of which I think the Opposition are aware.
      Mr. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is one Opposition amendment still outstanding, No. 45. That goes with Amendment No. 44. If we could comment on that it would be helpful.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

    Clause 107
      DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION TO SURETY UNDER FIXED-SUM CREDIT AGREEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 56, line 44, leave out 'regulated'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 113

      ACT NOT TO BE EVADED BY USE OF SECURITY
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 59, line 44, leave out '69 or' and insert:
      '69(1) or becomes subject to section 69(1 A), or (aa), a regulated agreement is'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 126
      ENFORCEMENT OF LAND MORTGAGES
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 64, leave out lines 48 to 50.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 127
      ENFORCEMENT ORDERS: GENERAL PRINCIPLE
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 65, line 5, leave out Clause 127.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 128

      ENFORCEMENT ORDERS IN CASES OF INFRINGEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 33, page 65, line 27 (Clause 128), leave out from 'court' to first 'it' and insert:
      'shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if'.
      No. 34, in page 65, line 34, leave out
      'under any provision mentioned in subsection (1)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 129

      ENFORCEMENT ORDERS ON DEATH OF DEBTOR OR HIRER
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 66, line 13, leave out from 'shall' to 'the' in line 14 and insert:
      'make an order under section 86(2) if, but only if,'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 135

      EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE DETENTION IN HIRE PURCHASE ETC. CASES
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 69, line 28, after 'creditor', insert 'or owner'.
      No. 90, in page 69, line 31, after 'debtor', insert 'or hirer'.
      No. 91, in page 69, line 37, after 'debtor', insert 'or hirer'.
      No. 92, in page 69, line 38, after 'creditor', insert 'or owner'.
      No. 93, in page 69, line 39, after 'debtor', insert 'or hirer'.
      No. 94, in page 69, line 40, after 'creditor', insert 'or owner'.
      No. 95, in page 69, line 41, after 'debtor', insert 'or hirer'.
      No. 96, in page 69, line 42, after 'debtor's ', insert 'or hirer's '.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 142

      JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 73, line 11, leave out 'or application'.
      No. 37, in page 73, line 12, leave out 'or application'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 143

      POWER TO DECLARE RIGHTS OF PARTIES
      Amendments made: No. 78, in page 73, line 26, leave out 'the debtor or

      899
      hirer, or any surety ' and insert ' an interested party'.
      No. 79, in page 73, line 32, leave out from the beginning to end of line 36 and insert:
      '(2) Where—

      (a) a regulated agreement or linked transaction is cancelled under section 69(1), or becomes subject to section 69(1A), or

      (b) a regulated agreement is terminated under Becton 91,

      and an interested party applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection, the court may make a declaration to that effect '.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 146

      TYPES OF ANCILLARY CREDIT BUSINESS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 75, line 3, leave out from 'credit' to end of line 5 and insert:

      (i) to persons carrying on businesses to which this sub-paragraph applies, or

      (ii) in the case of an individual desiring to obtain credit to finance the acquisition or provision of a dwelling occupied or to be occupied by himself or his relative, to any person carrying on a business in the course of which he provides credit secured on land, or'.

      No. 39, in page 75, line 13, after '(2)(a)', insert '(i)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 147

      EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTION 146
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 75A, line 16, leave out:
      'or section 75(1) of the Solicitors Measure (Northern Ireland) 1974'.
      No. 41, in page 75A, line 23, at end insert:
      '(3A) A solicitor in Northern Ireland engaging in business done, whether as solicitor or advocate, in or for the purposes of proceedings begun before a court (including the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland) or before an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland) 1937, not being business contained in section 2 of the Probates and Letters of Administration Act (Ireland) 1857, is not to be treated as doing so in the course of any ancillary credit business'.
      No. 42, in page 76, line 16, leave out
      'a consumer credit business or consumer hire business'
      and insert:
      'any business other than a debt-collecting business'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 156

      RIGHT TO RECOVER BROKERAGE FEES
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 80, line 5, leave out from ' individual' to end of line 11 and insert:
      'to whom this subsection applies shall cease to be payable or. as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the individual if the introduction does not result in his entering into a relevant agreement within the six months following the introduction (disregarding any agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1) or becomes subject to section 69(1A)).
      (1A) Subsection (1) applies to an individual who sought an introduction for a purpose which would have been fulfilled by his entry in to—

      (a) a regulated agreement, or

      (b) in the case of an individual such as is referred to in section 146(2)(a)(ii), an agreement for credit secured on land, or

      (c) an agreement such as is referred to in section 146(3)(b) or (c) or (4)(b).

      (1B) An agreement is a relevant agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) in relation to an individual if it is an agreement such as is referred to in subsection (1A) in relation to that individual '.—[Mr. Alan Willams.]

    Clause 159

      DUTY OF AGENCY TO DISCLOSE FILED INFORMATION
      Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 81, line 3 leave out ' the payment of ' and insert—
      'such particulars as the agency may reasonably require to enable them to identify the file, and'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Mr. Channon: It has been pointed out to me that we have an alternative amendment, No. 45, and that, although the Government's amendment is a step forward, it does not go far enough to meet the reasonable requirements of those who will have to operate this new section of the Bill. If one is asked to provide details about a "Mr. A. Williams", it is surely much clearer if one can be told exactly who the person is whose name and address or addresses are given in the notice, so that it is known exactly about whom one is asked to provide the information.
      The Government's amendment uses the words
      "such particulars as the agency may reasonably require to enable them to identify the file".

      901
      There is still, however, considerable worry that this would still put them under a very onerous duty to look at all the files of people who may live miles away. "Mr. A. William" may live in Glasgow rather than London.
      Amendment No. 45 is an alternative and would make it much clearer. It would not weaken any protection for the consumer; it would probably help the consumer if it were known exactly about whom one was making inquiries rather than about some amorphous group of people. The Government's amendment would still lead to that situation.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I looked at the hon. Gentleman's amendment, obviously, as we had one working to a similar objective. I know that we both want to resolve the problem which faces the agencies particularly. In our part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where the names are often coincidental, a large number of people with similar names have similar initials. However, we have looked at the two options, but we feel that the amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman would dilute the concept of the file too much and could lead to too many escape routes for agencies. Our amendment should meet the requirements because we "reasonably require" to enable them to identify the file. On the instance that the hon. Gentleman put forward of a "Mr. A. Williams" in Glasgow and a "Mr. A. Williams" in London, I should think it would be of some relevance if Mr. A. Williams had neglected to mention that he also had a Glasgow address.
      It seems that our use of the term "reasonably" would cover the agencies. The concession that we have made—perhaps not a concession—the modification that we have made as a result of representations we have received is such that most of the requirements of the agencies have been met where both sides would agree that there is a reasonable point. But I cannot urge the House to accept the amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
      May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your help in speeding the proceedings today and for removing a major headache from my hon. Friends and me, with all the amendments that we had ahead of us.
      902
      I should like to feel that it was somewhat out of regard for the proceedings of the House. In Welsh Grand Committee, and so on, we have been in debate, fortunately on the same side, so often together Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I suspect that it is that you are now so impressed with the potential length of my speeches that you would resort to almost any procedural device to avoid that.
      Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I still have worries that what is proposed will not be "reasonable", but we shall now have to await the outcome. If there are serious representations after the passage of the Bill, I hope that the Government will be prepared to look at them. However, I do not wish to press Amendment No. 45.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 162

      POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION
      Manuscript amendment made: In page 85, line 12, leave out ' authorities' and insert 'authorises'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put the remainder of the Government amendments, including the manuscript amendments.

    Clause 172

      STATEMENTS BY CREDITOR OR OWNER TO BE BINDING
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 88, leave out lines 48 and 49 and insert:
      '(2) Where a trader—

      (a) gives a customer a notice in compliance with section 103(1)(b), or

      (b) gives a customer a notice under section 103(1) asserting that the customer is not indebted to him under an agreement, the notice is binding on the trader'.

      No. 47, in page 83, line 54, leave out from 'court' to end of line 3 on page 89 and insert:
      'may direct such relief (if any) to be given to the creditor or owner from the operation of subsection (1) or (2) as appears to the court to be just'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 181
      POWER TO ALTER MONETARY LIMITS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 87, in page 93 line 16, leave out 'and (9)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Clause 183

      ASSOCIATES
      Manuscript amendments made: In page 94, line 11, leave out the' and insert 'a'.
      In page 94, line 12, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
      In page 94, line 15, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
      In page 94, line 22, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
      In page 94, line 23, leave out 'the'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Clause 188

      DEFINITIONS
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 97, line 39 at end insert:
      'and includes a consumer credit agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1), or becomes subject to section 69(1A), so far as the agreement remains in force'.
      No. 48, in page 99, line 31, leave out 'has the meaning given by section 127(a)' and insert:
      'means an order under section 65(1), 105(6)(a) or (b), 111(2) or 124(1) or (2);
      No. 49, in page 100, line 13, leave out 'subject to section',

      (Alternative procedure for business consumers).

      Failure of credit reference agency to comply with section (Alternative procedure for business consumers) (3) or (4).

      Summarily £200.'

      —[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Schedule 2

      EXAMPLES OF USE OF NEW TERMINOLOGY
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 110, line 12, at end insert '24'.
      No. 56 a, in page 110, line 24, at end insert '24'.
      No. 56 c, in page 110, line 25, at end insert:
      'Modifying agreement. 82(2) 24'.
      No. 50, in page 101, line 29, leave out:
      'and "unlicensed" shall be construed accordingly'.
      No. 51, in page 103, line 32, leave out 'subject to section'.
      No. 52, in page 104, line 25, at end insert:
      `"unlicensed" means without a licence, but applies only in relation to acts for which a licence is required;'.
      No. 53, in page 104, line 40, at end insert:
      'This subsection does not apply to Scotland'—[Mr Alan Williams]

    Clause 192
      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: In page 106, line 34, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
    Schedule 1

      PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES
      Manuscript amendments made: In page 107, line 13, leave out:
      '45(1) Failure to indicate in advertisements that goods etc.'
      and insert:
      '45 Advertising credit where goods etc. not.'
      In page 107, line 22, after previous 'insert oral'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 109, line 7, at end insert:
      No. 56d, in page 110, line 29, leave out '181' and insert '186'.
      No. 57, in page 118, line 6, at end insert:
      `EXAMPLE 24
      Facts. On 1st March 1975 Z (In England) enters into an agreement with A (an unincorporated body of persons) to bail to A equipment consisting of two components (component P and component Q). The agreement is not a hire-purchase agreement and is for a fixed term of 3 years, so paragraph (a) and (b) of section 15(1) are both satisfied. The rental is payable monthly at a rate of £2,400

      905
      a year, but the agreement provides that this is to be reduced to £1,200 a year for the remainder of the agreement if at any time during its currency A returns component Q to the owner Z. On 5th May 1976 A is incorporated as A Ltd., taking over A's assets and liabilities. On 1st March 1977, A Ltd., returns component Q. On 1st January 1978, Z and A Ltd. agree to extend the earlier agreement by one year, increasing the rental for the final year by £250 to £1,450.
      Analysis. When entered into on 1st March 1975, the agreement is a consumer hire agreement. A falls within the definition of "individual" in section 188(1) and if A returns component Q before 1st May 1976 the total rental will not exceed £5,000 (see section 15(1)(c)). When this date is passed without component Q having been returned it is obvious that the total rental must now exceed £5,000. Does this mean that the agreement then ceases to be a consumer hire agreement? The answer is no, because there has been no change in the terms of the agreement, and without such a change the agreement cannot move from one category to the other. Similarly, the fact that A's rights and duties under the agreement pass to a body corporate on 5th May 1976 does not cause the agreement to cease to be a consumer hire agreement (see the definition of "hirer" in section 188(1)).
      The effect of the modifying agreement of 1st January 1978 is governed by section 82(2), which requires it to be treated as containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two actual agreements, that is to say as providing that—

      (a) obligations outstanding on 1st January 1978 are to be treated as outstanding under the modifying agreement;

      (b) the modifying agreement applies at the old rate of hire for the months of January and February 1978, and

      (c) for the year beginning 1st March 1978 A Ltd. will be the bailee of component P at a rental of £1,450.

      The total rental under the modifying aggrement is £1,850. Accordingly the modifying agreement is a regulated agreement. Even if the total rental under the modifying agreement exceeded £5,000 it would still be regulated because of the provisions of section 82(3)'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Schedule 3

      TRANSITIONAL AND COMMENCEMENT PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 119, line 42, leave out 'whenever the negotiations take place' and insert—
      'where the negotiations begin after the day appointed for the purposes of this paragraph'
      No. 59, in page 121B, line 4, after 'bargains)', insert—
      'come into operation on the day appointed for the purposes of this paragraph, and'.
      No. 60, in page 121B, line 6, leave out 'Section 142' and insert—
      'Subject to paragraph 42, Part Ix'.
      No. 61, in page 122, line 3, at end insert—
      '48A.—(1) In the case of an agreement—

      (a) which was made before the day appointed for the purposes of paragraph 17, and

      (b) to which (by virtue of paragraph 17(2)) Section 78(4) applies, section 184(2) shall have effect as respects a notice given before that day in relation to the agreement (whether given before or after the passing of this Act) as it would have effect if section 78(4) had been in operation when the notice was given.

      (2) Paragraph (1) applies to an agreement made on or after the day appointed for the purposes of paragraph 17 to provide credit on a current account opened before that day as it applies to an agreement made before that day'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]

    Schedule 5

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 160, line 32, leave out 'The'.
      No. 63, in page 161, line 43, leave out first 'The'.
      No. 64, in page 162, line 22, leave out 'The'.
      No. 65, in page 162, line 39, leave out first 'The'.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration of Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
  1.0 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I was prepared—
  Mr. Arthur Jones: On a point of order. As I think you were about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is leading for the Opposition on the proceedings we are about to enter, is not with us. It is

  907
  generally known that he has been sitting all night in Committee on the Rent Bill. Those proceedings started at 10.30 yesterday morning and for a Committee with that length of sitting I think there might be a Guinness Book of Records entry in the offing. The Committee has been sitting all night and, I think, finished only a short time ago. I submit for your consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House should adjourn for a short time to enable my hon. Friend to attend.
  May I also add that I think all hon. Members are having great difficulty in informing themselves adequately on the Bill and the amendments? The Minister of State has expressed himself about the difficulties of printing which are restricting our proceedings. Many of the amendments have not been edited. They refer to the old Bill rather than the new draft which is before us today. This is a difficult situation for the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Because this House on a Friday is always in a wonderful mood, I think that we should suspend our sitting for 10 minutes to allow the hon. Gentleman to join us.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Bill is a matter of cardinal importance and is recognised as such by both sides of the House, so it would be of advantage to have the main Opposition spokesman present. I understand the great difficulties under which he has laboured. In the expectation that we shall complete the Report stage I am happy to associate myself with the request which has been made.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the confusion over the state of the Bill, which I trust will be soon resolved, I could point out that I am ready to proceed with the next items on our agenda, the two Prayers, although at the moment I do not see a Minister present to reply. If after the suspension, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you thought it appropriate to alter the order of business to allow those involved in the Bill to recover from their labours of last night, I should be willing to proceed with those orders.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now I have heard everything. One thing that I cannot do is change the order of business.
  1.2 p.m.
  Sitting suspended.
  On resuming—
  1.12 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to deal on a Friday with such important Government Bills as appear on the Order Paper. The Control of Pollution Bill [Lords] has come from another place. Those of us who have to choose between our constituency engagements and the business of the House to find it difficult to be here this afternoon to deal with a matter of such importance. You will know from your own experience that this Bill deals with control of pollution in the rivers of South Wales, a matter of great interest to you and to me. It is disgraceful that in handling a Bill like this, which comes from another place, the Government should put it on now rather than during an ordinary weekday.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced in the ways of the House. He will know that his quarrel is not with the Chair. This is not a point of order. The arrangement of business is not in my hands.
  Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that mine is a real point of order. It concerns what has recently occurred. We have had a suspension of the sitting until a minute or two ago. A couple of weeks ago I was very interested in the Hare Coursing Bill. At about this time on that occasion a number of Bills were counted out. I should be pleased if you could give us some explanation about this latest procedure because it may be useful in future for back-benchers when we reach a similar situation. I should like to know more about it so that we can make sure that important Bills like the Hare Coursing Bill survive.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. There was general agreement on

  909
  both sides of the House to suspend the sitting to enable the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who was leading for the Opposition in a Committee which has been sitting all night and is also leading for the Opposition and this Bill, to get to the Chamber. It was one of those courtesies of which the House is capable from time to time. It must not be taken as a general precedent for Four o'clock business.
  Mr Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I express my grateful thanks to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the consideration and courtesy they have shown me in suspending the sitting in this way so that I may attend in my place at the Dispatch Box. In Committee we have undergone a marathon sitting of 26 hours non-stop. I hope that I am still up to the task before me for the rest of the day, although I shall crave your indulgence if you notice that from time to time I do not find the correct place in my papers. I have been dealing with a great number of other papers on another matter in Committee and it is only at this moment that I have begun to devote my attentions to this Bill.
  1.15 p.m.
  Having said that and expressed my sincere thanks, may I, as a further point of order, now make a complaint? I am aware that it is not in order in any way to question the selection of the Chair as to the new clauses and amendments which are to be considered. There is, however, one circumstance upon which I would like your guidance. There was a particular new clause selected for debate in Committee. Because this gave rise to an entirely new area of discussion I felt it was only right that the Government should have the opportunity of consulting outside interests.
  Therefore I did not move that new clause on the general understanding and agreement in Committee that it would be selected here. I now find that it has not been selected. I should be grateful if an inquiry could be made into the reasons for that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me time to consider that question. May I say—
  Mr. John Ellis: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am replying to the point of order. It is so pleasant that the House can be suspended in a good mood.
  Mr. Ellis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no objection to what has gone on and to the customary efficieny with which you have despatched an unusual situation. Nevertheless, there were few backbenchers present at the beginning of this exchange and I feel that one of us is obliged to press the point I have already put to you. It may be that the two Front Benchers have agreed and that the whole House has agreed to what has happened. There is nevertheless other important business affecting us and I would take this as a precedent. I hope you will look into it so that if back-benchers are in a similar position on a Friday and can get the agreement of the House they will be granted a suspension of business so that we do not lose Bills as we did a fortnight ago.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, I do not think I need say anything to the hon. Gentleman after what I have said previously. This was done with the agreement of all sides of the House. There were a large number of hon. Members present. I acted accordingly.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I do not criticise those responsible for not selecting certain amendments, may I draw your atttention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, which were designed to give teeth to the Bill have not been selected. May I ask you whether hon. Members who have put their names to those amendments may speak about their intentions even though the amendments have not been selected?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot discuss amendments that are not called. Hon. Members with long experience like the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) will know that there are ways of making their points on other amendments. I know the hon. Member well enough to expect that I shall hear him.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      PRODUCTION OF HEAT AND ELECTRICITY FROM WASTE ETC.
      (1) A disposal authority may, subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section—

      (a) use waste belonging to the authority for the purpose of producing from it heat or electricity or both;

      (b) establish and operate, within or outside its area, such generating stations and other installations as the authority thinks fit for the purpose aforesaid; and

      (c) where the authority operates an installation in which waste is usually used as the main fuel for the purpose of producing heat or electricity, then—

      (i) in the case of an installation for producing heat, use other fuel in addition to waste to produce the heat, and

      (ii) in the case of an installation for producing electricity, use other fuel to assist in burning the waste to produce the electricity, and, in an emergency, use other fuel instead of waste to produce the heat or electricity;

      and a disposal authority may use, sell or otherwise dispose of any heat produced by the authority by virtue of this section.
      (2) A disposal authority shall not be entitled to make any arrangements with a view to the production from waste of electricity for use otherwise than by the authority unless—

      (a) the authority has had consultations about the arrangements with the Central Electricity Generating Board and with any Electricty Board proposed to be specified in the arrangements in pursuance of paragraph (b) of the following subsection; and

      (b) the arrangements are approved by the Secretary of State and are in accordance with any conditions which he attaches to his approval.

      In the application of this subsection to Scotland the reference to the Central Electricity Generating Board shall be omitted.
      (3) Where a disposal authority produces electricity by virtue of this section the authority—

      (a) may use any of the electricity at the installation at which it was produced and on any premises occupied by the authority in connection with the installation, but shall not use any of it elsewhere;

      (b) may sell any of the electricity, on such terms as are specified in the relevant arrangements made in pursuance of the preceding subsection, to any Electricity Board (within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1947) which is so specified, but shall not or otherwise dispose of any of it to any other person;
      912
      and it shall be the duty of any Electricity Board so specified to buy electricity from the authority in accordance with the said arrangements.

      (4) Subsection (6) of section 12 of this Act (except paragraph (b) of that subsection) and subsection (6A) of that section (except so much of it as relates to the Pipe-lines Act 1962) shall have effect in relation to a disposal authority as if the reference in the said subsection (6) to the collection of waste in pursuance of that section included the conveying of heat produced by the authority by virtue of this section and of air, steam and water heated by such heat.
      (5) It shall be the duty of a disposal authority by which an installation for producing heat is operated in pursuance of this section in any year to furnish to the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable after the end of that year such particulars relating to the installation and heat produced at it as are prescribed.
      (6) Nothing in this section (except the restrictions imposed by subsections (2) and (3)) shall be construed as prejudicing any power exercisable by a disposal authority apart from this section.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can alse discuss new Clause 5 (Supplementary provisions relating to pipes), and Government Amendments Nos. 30, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 28.
      Mr. Howell: I share the concern that it is necessary to take such an important Bill on a Friday. Nevertheless the circumstances are well known. I am encouraged by the fact that there has been considerable co-operation on all sides during the proceedings of the Bill to date. I hope that that will be the case this afternoon. In moving amendments I shall seek either to give the briefest possible outline or to move them formally. Of course, if the House wants further information I shall do my best to give it.
      In another place my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced on Second Reading that we would be considering the incorporation of measures that would give waste disposal authorities powers to utilise heat produced from the incineration or processing of waste either for district heating schemes or for the generation of electricity. The new clause will give disposal authorities necessary powers and relieve them of the necessity of seeking Local. Act powers for individual schemes.

      913
      New Clause 5 places a duty on collection and disposal authorities to prepare maps showing the location of their pipes for transporting waste or heat. A copy of the maps will have to be made available for public inspection at the offices of the collection authority in whose areas the pipes have been laid. That is in every way an eminently sensible proposition. It will obviously be essential to maintain proper records of the location of waste or heat pipes, as it is at the present time for drains or sewers, and to make these records open to inspection. New Clause 5 is consequential upon the powers we are seeking in new Clause 1 and I hope that the House will approve.
      Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Government are to be congratulated on the principle of the clause but I see one or two difficulties associated with it. First, the disposal authority will have the right to sell anywhere the heat which is produced from the burning of waste, but electricity is dealt with in a different way. The clause says that the authorities may not sell to any other person and that it shall become the duty of the electricity boards so specified to buy electricity from them.
      There is to be free disposal of heat, and that may become important to the chemical industry which could be a free buyer in the open market. However, the electricity produced by the disposal authority in England and Wales would have to be sold to the CEGB and part of the value of the scheme is thrown away. I dare say the Government have in mind the Wilton power station of ICI which in 1973 produced something of the order of 300 megawatts of electric power and 1,200 tons per hour of steam. The heat was produced from chemical waste. It seems an extremely good idea and it gives some idea of the type of waste that can be utilised—for example gas, liquid petroleum gas, tars, waste lubricating oils, emulsion residues, waste from aromatic and olefin plants and hydrogen gas from the nylon plant. This sort of thing shows how we advance in technology and it is a good indication of the way in which the Government are moving ahead to take advantage of the use of waste to produce electricity.
      It must be remembered that we are not first in the field in this direction.
      914
      Amsterdam already provides about 6 per cent. of its electricity from waste disposal. Plants are already planned in the Federal Republic of Germany, and in the United States more than 136 million tons of refuse is consumed every year in the production of heat and electricity. If it was all consumed in the production of electricity it would supply 11 per cent. of the nation's requirements. Bearing in mind our responsibilities to the miners of this country, the Government should take note of the fact that in East Bridgewater in Massachusetts it is possible to produce a fuel which will generate as much steam as pulverised coal on an equivalent weight basis, and that all comes from refuse. It is worth noting that the amount of fly ash produced is comparable to that produced from coal.
      I therefore welcome this proposal. I have only one criticism apart from my point about electricity having to be sold to the CEGB, and that is that perhaps it should be specified for the sake of industry which types of fuels may be consumed. It might be interesting if the Minister gave some guidance on the methods he has in mind. Is he moving towards hydrogenation, pyrolysis and bioconversion? I realise that there has not been a great deal of research work on the last of these, but the first two have reached the trial stage and it is well known that with optimum conditions with hydrogenation as much as 99 per cent. of the carbon content is converted to oil—about two barrels per ton of dry waste—and with pyrolysis, which has been operated to a great extent in the United States by Monsanto, Union Carbide and the Garrett Research and Development Company, great results have been achieved. These processes could be of great value to the Government in pushing forward with this proposal.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your kind reception of my proposition earlier about the suspension of the sitting. I know that I echo the opinion of everyone in the House when I say how pleased we are that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is now in his place. We sympathise with him for the hard stint he has had during the last 26 hours. He said that he had difficulty in getting down to his papers, but that difficulty applies

      915
      to many of us because the papers have been tardy in coming up. There are a number of Government starred amendments which it has been difficult to have the chance to look at, and I think we shall find that quite a number of the amendments have not been edited to fit in with the redrafting of the Bill.
      This is an intolerable situation in which the House has to conduct its business. I know that it is in no way the Chair's responsibility but I think I am reflecting the views of hon. Members on both sides about the unreasonable pressure there is on business, as reflected by your decision to suspend the proceedings. I am sure that we are determined to get on with the business and to deal with it as purposefully, promptly and effectively as we may.
      I welcome the new Clause. The Minister referred to individual schemes, but I do not know whether he meant that disposal authorities as individual authorities would need to have schemes of that character or whether the authorities could get together on a joint basis.
      Was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) correct in saying that the power had to be sold to the CEGB? Surely schemes of this sort will enable local authorities to use the power generated for their own purposes. It has been common practice in the past for the burning of waste to be used by local authorities to generate power to pump sewage disposal units and arrangements of that sort. Was my hon. Friend correct in saying that the schemes envisaged are of such a magnitude that the power produced will be put into the national grid?
      Is the question of mineral recovery dealt with? Warren Spring, for example, we have seen prototype schemes of the disposal of waste by burning and the recovery of minerals as a result. I do not know whether that is dealt with.
      I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said on the subject. We are creating new powers, and I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say.
      1.30 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): It is welcome and refreshing that we should have some
      916
      discussion about what the Department of the Environment and my Department feel about the matter.
      The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) raised many interesting questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy recently published a document on the conservation of energy. The House has also had the advantage of the publication of the CPRS report on conservation, which says that incineration can make a contribution towards conserving energy resources. The hon. Gentleman's contribution is timely.
      I shall consider the impact of the clause under three headings. First, the clause will enable local authorities to make a small but welcome addition to the country's energy resources by supplying electricity to the system and supplying heat for district heating schemes from the burning of waste. I was recently sent to Scandinavia to examine district heating. The Scandinavian countries have far more experience of incineration than we have. In trying to learn from their experience I visited up-to-date incineration schemes where the Scandinavians burn household refuse in towns and localities. In Stockholm, I understand, some 40 per cent. of buildings are heated from district heating schemes, and there are a number of incineration plants.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) talked about mineral waste. We and local authorities will be examining the whole question of recycling material. I received from America last week a postcard on which it was stated to be the result of the recycling of paper in a particular State. The question of recycling material, something that is already happening in many parts of the world, is relevant when we talk about incineration. For example, 40 per cent. of incineration is of paper, some of which, together with other materials, can be recycled.
      Secondly, the clause is an enabling provision. We cannot predict what the local waste disposal authorities will do, but we shall examine each proposal sympathetically from all points of view.
      The hon. Member for Bedford asked whether research and development were involved, and he introduced the question of coal. This Government set up the tripartite examination by the unions,

      917
      employers and the Government. The examination has also set up a working party to deal with the whole question of research and development on coal conversion and other sources of heat. I am the chairman of the working party. I hope that we shall very shortly be able to publish a report for the scrutiny of not only the House but the whole nation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, because he takes an active interest in these matters.
      The Central Electricity Generating Board is ready to give local authorities the benefit of its experience and advice in considering plans to generate electricity from the incineration of waste. The local authorities will sell the electricity to the electricity boards. The House is aware that we have a national grid system. We are talking about an infinitesimal part of electricity capacity and generation. There will be two-way co-operation. The electricity authorities will make their expertise available to the local authorities so that they may decide whether they should go in for heat production from waste disposal.
      Mr. Skeet: To encourage the conservation of energy and to encourage people to utilise waste in that connection, would it not be more appropriate to encourage schemes such as the ICI development by which ICI produces its own electricity?
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is talking about something else, which may be the subject of a debate on another occasion. We are talking about a new clause dealing with refuse disposal. I hope that the House will have a debate about the whole question of energy conservation, when it can go into matters of refuse disposal and incineration.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I do not think that the Minister has covered the point about the use by local authorities of the power generated.
      Mr. Denis Howell: They can use it themselves or sell it to the electricity boards.
      Mr. Eadie: We are talking about something that is very small. There will be co-operation between the electricity undertakings and the local authorities, and there will be close collaboration between the Department of Energy and the
      918
      local authorities with regard to the sums of money involved. I think that the House would wish that.
      The principle of incineration is a substantial subject to which I hope the House will return one day.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      PROHIBITION OF PARKING TO FACILITATE STREET CLEANING
      (1) Where in the case of any part of a highway (hereafter in this section referred to as "the relevant area") the highway authority for the relevant area or the local authority in whose area the relevant area is situated considers that, in order to facilitate the cleaning of the relevant area on a particular day (hereafter in this section referred to as "the relevant day"), it is appropriate to prohibit the parking of vehicles in the relevant area during certain hours of the relevant day, the authority may give notice in accordance with the following provisions of this section prohibiting such parking.
      (2) Such notice must specify the relevant area, the relevant day and the hours in question and must be in such form and contain such other information as are prescribed; and subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the following subsection a copy of the notice must—

      (a) be served in accordance with regulations on the occupier of any premises adjoining the relevant area and on any prescribed person; and

      (b) be conspicuously displayed in accordance with regulations at places in the relevant area.

      (3) Regulations may provide—

      (a) that such a notice which is served in a prescribed manner in respect of any premises shall be treated for the purposes of this section as served on the occupier of the premises;

      (b) that a failure to serve or display a notice as required by virtue of this section apart from the regulations shall in prescribed circumstances he disregarded for the purposes of this section; and

      (c) for the covering up of traffic signs and parking meters on the relevant day or any part of it, but without prejudice to the effect of the notice in question if regulations made in pursuance of this paragraph are not observed.

      (4) Regulations may also provide that sections 20, 52 and 53 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (which among other things provide for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles left on roads in contravention of a statutory prohibition) shall have effect, in relation to any vehicle which is or was standing

      919
      on any part of a highway while parking on that part is or was prohibited by virtue of this section, with such modifications as are prescribed.
      (5) If, either before or during the hours on the relevant day which are specified in a notice given by an authority as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the authority displays such further notices in the relevant area and takes such other steps (if any) as are prescribed, the prohibition on parking attributable to the notice so given shall not come into force or, if it is already in force, shall cease to be in force.
      (6) It shall be the duty of the highway authority for any part of a highway and of the local authority in whose area the part is situated to co-operate with each other in performing the functions conferred on them by virtue of this section; and where a highway authority or a local authority gives notice as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section in respect of any part of a highway for which it is the highway authority or, as the case may be, which is within its area, any other authority which is the highway authority for that part or which is the local authority within whose area that part is situated shall, with the approval of the authority which gave the notice, be entitled to act in pursuance of this section as if the other authority had given similar notice.
      (7) Where any parking in the relevant area is, by virtue of a notice given as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, prohibited during specified hours on the relevant day, no right of action shall accrue to any person by reason of the fact that all or some of the cleaning of the relevant area which the highway authority or, as the case may be, the local authority proposes to do or has done during those hours is not cleaning which that authority has or had power to do if the other of those authorities has or had power to do it.
      (8) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this section to a part of a highway includes any such part on which the parking of vehicles is, apart from this section, authorised by virtue of any enactment whether on payment or free of charge; and where the parking of vehicles on such a part is prohibited by virtue of this section a person shall not be entitled to recover any sum paid by him in respect of the parking of a vehicle there.—[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 the new clause we are to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
      Mr. Howell: On Second Reading I expressed my astonishment at finding that there was no obligation to clean the streets. I mentioned that such an obligation would obviously raise the question of moving motor cars to allow local
      920
      authorities to carry out the cleaning. As the House will want to have regard to the great shortage of labour and the use of new mechanical means, I think that that is a reasonable proposition.
      The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will be glad to know that this provision comes directly from Haringey Borough, where it has proved to be extremely helpful. Two steps will be required to activate it. First, the highway or local authority will have to serve advance notices on the occupiers, and it will also have to exhibit notices stating the day and hours when it intends to clean particular streets. That will be helpful. It will guarantee that the streets are cleaned, which is not always the case now.
      Secondly, there is Provision that parking spaces and meters can be suspended during certain periods. It has been suggested that we should go further and make it an offence for people to leave their cars in such areas. I am sure that I carry the House with me when I say there is no need to go to the Draconian lengths of saying that someone has committed a criminal offence if he has left his motor car in a relevant area. Nor are we suggesting or envisaging that cars will be moved great distances. Local authorities will have power to move a car from one side of the road to the other or just around the corner. In other words, they will have the power to move a vehicle sufficiently for the purpose we have in mind. We must tackle the problem of litter in our streets and the cleaning of the streets. This is a sensible step forward which I hope commends itself to the House.
      Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for the manner in which he has moved the new clause and for the tribute he has paid to my local authority for pioneering this provision in a Private Act during the three years in which my party happened to be in control of the local authority. There were other provisions, such as the banning of heavy lorries in residential streets throughout the borough, which have been of great benefit to the residents in my constituency.
      We must bear in mind that with a provision of this kind local authorities must take care that it does not become an instrument of harassment for motorists.

      921
      That can so easily be the result. Once the power is in the hands of a local authority, it should become a matter of mutual co-operation between the authorities and the motorist. The motorists who leave their cars in the residential streets of boroughs are mostly those who live in the same streets in which they park their cars. That is because they happen to have a house without a garage. It is in their interests as much as anyone else's that the streets are kept clean and that the environment and the amenities are well maintained.
      The Minister will gather from the trend of my remarks that I give a warm welcome to this proposal.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I also extend a warm welcome to the new clause. I thank the Minister for the cooperation which he has given in the background by enabling me to see the new clause prior to the debate.
      It has been brought to my notice in my constituency that where a street has become filthy, and where cars have been parked seven days a week, Sunday is generally the day when washing-down takes place. I am told that there is a growing practice of emptying oil sumps into drains in the gutter. That, of course, leads to blockages and when there is a thunderstorm flooding takes place. This is a growing practice to which local authorities will have to attend. With these few words I welcome the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      OUTFALL PIPES FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS
      '(1) Parts V and VI of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (which relate to the laying of mains and the breaking up of streets) shall apply in relation to outfall pipes and associated works which are provided or to be provided by a water authority for sewage disposal works belonging to the authority as those Parts apply in relation to water mains and pipes but as if in those Parts there were made the modifications specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(6A) of this Act.
      2. This section does not apply to Scotland '.—[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.
      The clause concerns itself with the laying of pipes for the transporting of sewage sludge. Its purpose is to enable water authorities to lay pipes for the disposal of sewage and other materials from sewage disposal works. At present water authorities do not have that power although they have the powers to construct sewers to bring sewage to disposal works. The new power is essentially the same as the power being given to the disposal authorities to transport waste by pipeline. I hope that the House will find that explanation satisfactory.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO PIPES
      '(1) Where an authority provides pipes in pursuance of section 12(6), 14(5) or 15(2) of this Act or subsection (4) of section (Production of heat and electricity from waste etc.) or section (Outfall pipes for sewage disposal works) of this Act, it shall be the duty of the authority—

      (a) except where the authority is a collection authority and the pipes are situated in its area, to send to the collection authority in whose area the pipes are situated a map in the prescribed form showing the location of the pipes; and

      (b) where the authority is a collection authority and the pipes are situated in its area, to prepare such a map;

      and it shall be the duty of an authority by which a map is received in pursuance of paragraph (a) of this subsection or is prepared in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this subsection to secure that a copy of the map is available at its principal offices for inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.
      In the application of this subsection to Scotland, the words "the authority is a collection authority and" in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted.
      (2) Section 25 of the Public Health Act 1936 (under which the erection of buildings over a sewer or drain may be prevented or controlled by a local authority or, on appeal by a magistrates' court) shall have effect as if references to a drain included any pipe provided as mentioned in the preceding subsection and as if reference to the map of sewers required by that Act to be kept deposited at the offices of an authority included any map required by the preceding subsection to be kept available at the offices of the authority.
      (3) Section 21 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (under which the erection of buildings over a sewer vested in a local authority may be prevented or controlled by the authority or, on appeal, by the sheriff) shall have effect as if the reference to a sewer vested in a local authority included any pipe provided as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
      (4) References to pipes in the preceding provisions of this section include associated works '.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6

      POWER TO GIVE EFFECT TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
      (1) Regulations may provide that any provision of this Act, except this section, shall have effect with such modifications as are prescribed with a view to enabling the Government of the United Kingdom to give effect to any provision made by or under any international agreement to which the Government is for the time being a party.
      (2) The Secretary of State may make, to the Commission established by the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources which was signed at Paris on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom on 4th June 1974, such payments towards the expenses of the Commission as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.45 p.m.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am sure that this is a matter that has the support of both sides of the House. The immediate purpose of the clause is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the provision of the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources which we signed with the support of all parties on 4th June.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      CONTROL OF SANITARY APPLIANCES ON TRAINS
      The Secretary of State shall, by a date to be determined by order, require that passenger trains operated by British Rail shall be provided with sanitary appliances, to an approved standard.—[Mr. Rossi.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is not a new clause in the sense that it has already been considered in identical terms in another place, and indeed, in Committee. It deals with the unsatisfactory situation on the railways in that sanitary appliances in British Rail passenger trains discharge what is essentially untreated raw waste directly on to the tracks. In theory, this happens only when the train is in motion, but as we know it happens from time to time when the train is stationary, despite notices requesting passengers not to use the facility when the train is in the station.
      We are seeking to introduce something which the Bill already does in respect of vessels on rivers. The Bill already gives water authorities wide-ranging powers to regulate by byelaws the use of sanitary appliances on inland waterways. We recognise that it would be unreasonable to require British Rail immediately to carry out extensive and extremely expensive conversion work to all passenger trains. Therefore, the new clause is so phrased that the Secretary of State may make orders specifying the standard to which British Rail should work and the date by which the work should be completed.
      Hon. Members will know that if the Channel Tunnel comes into being it will be necessary for British Rail to produce rolling stock with sanitary appliances which do not discharge into the tunnel. That work will have to be put in hand, and eventually there will have to be a degree of harmonisation with the whole of our rail system linking to the Continent through the Channel Tunnel. When the matter was discussed in Committee the Minister indicated that there were items of cost that he felt made the question prohibitive. He mentioned a figure of about £25 million simply for providing the means whereby the discharges would not take place when the train was still but would be discharged later. Even that would not be regarded as a very satisfactory system.
      In Committee there was discussion about it being possible to build jumbo-jet airliners carrying several hundred passengers for flights of seven hours or more and yet be able to containerise the

      925
      sewage produced during the flight. One would have thought it possible for British Rail engineers to start planning a system whereby that may be done with our trains. This is essentially a long-term operation. If the Government are as anxious as they say they are to control pollution, I hope that this is a matter that they will treat in a more forthcoming manner than they have so far. It is a matter of concern for very many people. There has been a great deal of correspondence on this matter and I ask the Minister to give it sympathetic consideration.
      We wait to hear whether there has been between Committee and Report any further thoughts on the matter so that the Minister can give us more welcome news than on the last occasion.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I cannot accept the new Clause but I can assure the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that a great deal of additional thought and activity has occurred since we debated the matter in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), said in Committee, we have talked to British Rail about the principles that are involved. Indeed, a conference met on 11th July, which was attended by representatives of British Rail and my Department to go over the whole matter in the light of the proceedings which took place in Committee.
      We are here dealing with the dirty business of society and the question of how British Rail should dispose of sewage. It is clear from investigations we have made that the adoption of either of the systems suggested by the hon. Gentleman would add considerably to the costs of British Rail. I was concerned about the public health aspects of this matter rather than the question of cost, but I have discovered, much to my amazement, that the present system does not give rise to any public health hazards, and I am informed that it is almost universally in practice throughout the world. Few authorities, if any, adopt a system different from that which we adopt.
      There is a problem about the Channel Tunnel and sleeping cars. Here I can bring some joy to the House, because it is the intention of British Rail to have a
      926
      retention system for train waste on sleeping cars and in respect of the Channel Tunnel. Offence can arise when sleeping cars are pushed into stations. The cost here is £500,000, and British Rail has agreed to get on with it, so we do not have to worry about that.
      We are, therefore, left with the matter of ordinary trains. It would cost £25 million to re-equip British Rail trains with a retention system which kept waste and sewage while the train was stationary and discharged it when the train was on the move. In other words, we would not get much for our £25 million, except, so to speak, a holding operation. I am sure that the House would not suggest that British Rail should accept that.
      The remaining possible way of dealing with the problem would be to adopt a retention system which used chemicals and containers so that the sewage and waste was dealt with in that way and was discharged into the normal sewage disposal system when the train went into a siding. I am advised that this would raise serious public health problems. The recirculation of chemically treated fluids is not ideal from an amenity point of view, and the public health advisers of British Rail would be opposed to such a system on public health grounds. I think that the House would hesitate to go against that advice until a much closer investigation was carried out.
      Mr. Spriggs: A system of containerisation is proposed in the new clause. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Railways research centre at Derby is doing quite a lot of research work into this subject? I am sure that something will be done about it without any pressure being brought to bear.
      Mr. Howell: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance. His knowledge of railway matters exceeds mine. I think that all the work being done is in respect of sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel, but if it is more extensive I welcome it.
      It would cost British Rail £30 million to install a retention system, but, in addition, there would be many other local authority costs in connection with maintenance and handling. British Rail doubts whether it would be able to get the labour force needed to deal with these filthy jobs.

      927
      There are considerable difficulties about the two main alternative systems proposed to the present system, but I hope that the House will accept that what I have said about sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel represents a satisfactory step forward. I regret that I am not able to accept the clause.
      Mr. Rossi: With leave, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for the further information which he has given. I was interested to learn that there is a difference of only £5 million between the two systems. That is surprising information, because in Committee we were given the impression that the retention system would be more costly. Although £30 million is a considerable sum and one would not wish to embark unnecessarily on public expenditure, this is a matter which should be considered on a long-term basis.
      I am glad to hear that British Rail is pressing ahead with studies into how this problem can be tackled. I am therefore content to leave the matter there and beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      DEFENCE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENCES
      It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under any of the relevant provisions of this Act or of regulations made thereunder to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.—[Mr. Rossi.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: We can also discuss new Clause 11 entitled "Powers of Secretary of State in respect of certain statutory nuisances".
      Mr. Rossi: New Clause 9 seeks to introduce a general defence into the Bill. At the moment there is, rightly, a large number of penalties for creating pollution, but some offences created by the Bill are of an obsolete nature. That is generally offensive to our legal system because we believe that there must be an element of guilty intention before a citizen can be
      928
      penalised for any act or omission. That is the general common law, although there are certain statutory exceptions.
      New Clause 9 seeks to make it a defence for a person charged with an offence under the legislation to prove that he has exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or by any person under his control. It is felt that this is a reasonable safeguard for the citizen and for industry as a whole. If it can be shown that proper care has been taken and there is no element of negligence, it should be a defence to any action brought against a person for inadvertent pollution or pollution outside the control of the person concerned.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting new Clause 11. I had hoped to raise this matter during the Committee stage but Select Committee business took me out of the country.
      The clause relates to that part of the Bill referring to pollution of the atmosphere. The Bill as drafted seems to concern itself mainly with dirt pollution, fumes and smoke but, vitally important as those are—and clearly we must carefully consider how we can improve control of them—pollution is not simply what we see, taste or hear but is also what we smell.
      A sweet scent is pleasurable; a noisome stench is incredibly objectionable. I gather that in the eighteenth century people carried nosegays of flowers because the sweet scent of the flowers counteracted the vile smell of the streets. By the same token, the purpose of the perfumes of Araby referred to in "Macbeth" was not so much to enhance the beauty of the person as to mask his or her body odours.
      2.0 p.m.
      Fortunately, all that is now in the past. Noxious smells are still with us, however, particularly those created within industry by operations such as chemical works, and in particular by the industry with which I am concerned—that which treats animal waste products. Here I must declare an interest. I am retained by such a company. Having said that, I hope that my words will perhaps carry a little more weight because I speak with just a marginal degree of experience.

      929
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) put his finger on what I am driving at when he talked about those who are not intent upon creating a nuisance or noxious odours. My new clause relates to this industry, which is treating a certain type of waste product and is doing so as best as it knows how within the science of the art. It is faced with a problem to which there is as yet no answer. I hope to show to the Minister that his own working party came to the same conclusion.
      On page 67 of Part I of the Report of the Working Party on the Suppression of Odours, published only this year, there was the following conclusion:
      "The section of the industry concerned with rendering and similar processes stands out from all the others in the severity of its odour abatement problems. Nowhere is there yet a complete solution to the problems of these trades."
      Nor is there.
      The trade's hope was that it would have some joy out of that report, because it would dearly like to know what is required of it to bring it within what might be described as acceptable limits. But it did not get any satisfaction. Now we are told that the working party is to produce a second report. It has stated that it wants to have a three-year period of research—which I believe started last April—and then it intends to produce conclusions which might be more binding and positive.
      So keen is the trade to see the second report become an effective document that it is making a financial contribution to the working party and its work. But we may have to wait three years, and while we are waiting the trade finds itself in a position in which writs can be served against it under Section 100 of the Public Health Act 1936.
      To get such a writ one simply has to prove public nuisance. One may say "The nuisance creates the writ and the company has to argue its case before the court." But with such a writ served against it the company will be very hard put to succeed in its defence.
      Indeed, I have a letter from the chairman of the trade association governing the industry in which he described the importance of the trade and says:
      "As an industry we collect and process more than I million tonnes of raw material per annum consisting of bones, fats and
      930
      slaughterhouse offals. This in turn produces some 220,000 tonnes of protein meal (for the farming industry), 150,000 tonnes of tallow, all of which are used in industry, including edible foods, gelatine for the food industry, pharmaceutical and photographic fields.
      This operation is carried out by some 150 rendering plants in 100 local authority areas, but 90 per cent. of the process and production originates from only about 10 per cent. of the total of these plants—all of considerable integrity and repute.
      The operation of our plants is governed by the Public Health Acts, and despite the many hundred of thousands of pounds spent by the industry in coping with odour suppression we are still under the most severe pressure by local authorities through the courts—in fact, several of our members have had to close down because of legal action. In this connection it should be emphasised that if the industry did not operate "—
      I ask the Minister of State particularly to note these words—
      "and all animal wastes were allowed to accumulate for collection and disposal like other trade wastes, conditions would rapidly become intolerable and a threat to public health.
      Without quoting actual figures, it should also be emphasised that as an industry we employ many thousands of people and save the country a considerable amount in foreign currency by the production of essential products in this country, which if not produced would involve us in the importation of similar products from abroad.
      We as an industry would request that the Secretary of State gives us some breathing space pending the final report of the working party, and ensures that sufficient legislation is introduced to prevent the closing down of further plants."
      That letter says all that I want to say. No one I have spoken to in the trade would argue for a blanket way out of the perfect right of any local authority to take action under the Public Health Act. What I am asking for is that if a company can prove to the Secretary of State that it has taken all reasonable measures to curb the odour nuisance, he, bearing in mind the national importance of the trade, may be in a position to allow that company to continue.
      I remind the Minister of State that these companies are already registered with the Alkali Inspectorate and therefore they are not, as it were, trading within an environment of their own making. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept, as the trade has to do, that if there is no measure that it can now take to ensure that no odour nuisance will be created by what it does, it will not be put at the mercy of the

      931
      courts and closed down, as was Dolphin-Canadian at Shoreham, but will have an appeal to an authority above the local authority—namely, the Secretary of State—with a consideration greater than the personal loss of amenity by local persons.
      Mr. Skeet: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I have one of these plants in my constituency. The idea is to produce animal protein through the utilisation of waste. If the waste were not utilised in this way it would be unused and a great loss to the nation. I remind the Minister that new Clause 1 was for the utilisation of waste in power stations for conversion into energy. In this case waste is being utilised to form food for animals, and this can be invaluable to the community.
      If we are to be consistent we must ensure that these plants can continue. The responsibility should come under this Bill and not fall between two stools—the Bill and the Public Health Act 1936. The result of that would be that until the full inquiry reported most of the plants might have to close down and we might find ourselves without any of these processing facilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to this argument and bear in mind that I have a fairly heavy constituency responsibility which has a strong case.
      Mr. Denis Howell: There are two important principles involved in these clauses. New Clause 9 seeks to provide a general defence of "no negligence" for people charged with pollution under the Bill. It would affect all parts of the Bill and, if it is the desire of the House, I could point to those matters in detail. If the law is to be effective, it must command public support. There are certain matters in all fields of pollution which should not happen and it is our duty to stop them occurring.
      The principle is that people who cause pollution impose a burden on the rest of the community. This ranges from minor nuisances to serious hazards and grave dangers of life or health. People who pollute should be held responsible for the damage they do. We should be chary of giving polluters an escape clause of such magnitude as proposed in the provision. The general proposals of the
      932
      clause would give a blanket defence of due diligence which should not be provided. As a general principle, people have to have regard to the pollution which flows from their own activities. No local authority or water authority, in my judgment, would be likely to take action against people where a genuine mistake had occurred, although in exercising that judgment it would have regard to the severity of the pollution caused.
      In another place there was considerable concern on this matter. The Law Lords who took part in the debate were careful to protect and preserve the rights of citizens to go to the courts for injunctions and in other ways to have these matters dealt with. I referred to the case of Alphacell v. Woodward, which was discussed at length in another place and in Committee upstairs. It turned on the interpretation of the words "causes or knowingly permits". In that sense I have to resist the amendment.
      Let me make clear that the offence provision in subsection (1) does not create an absolute offence. It has to be proved that the pollution is caused or knowingly permitted. I think that is a reasonable provision to make in the Bill, and I cannot advise the House to depart from it.
      I turn to new Clause 11 which deals with obnoxious smells. I am afraid that once more I cannot advise the House to agree to that provision. The existing law contained in the Public Health Act 1936 gives local authorities two means of proceeding against the statutory nuisance. One is an abatement notice enforceable in the magistrates' court. One defence available in the magistrates' court is that the offender was using the best practicable means to deal with the situation.
      The second way of dealing with obnoxious smells and odours is by an injunction in the High Court. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wants to change the situation and quoted a case in which the High Court took action resulting in the closing down of an undertaking of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—an undertaking which in performing a national duty in disposing of offal and innards and other things which society has to deal with. I would be reluctant to interfere with the rights of citizens to go to the High Court for

      933
      an injunction. We should not forget that such a proposal would have to return to the other place and I am sure noble-Lords would not take too kindly to a proposal to remove the right for a citizen or company to go to the court. The Secretary of State would not wish to superimpose himself into any judgment on this matter in place of the courts.
      Mr. Skeet: I believe the Minister has got my point, but what does he intend to do to save the industry in question? These firms will go out one by one unless he does something to assist.
      2.15 p.m.
      Mr. Howell: In a Bill dealing with the control of pollution it is not my duty to go too far in that direction, except to say that it is obviously in the national interest to keep the matter under control. If a factory is giving out offensive odours and citizens go to the court and say that the smell is intolerable, the court may come to the conclusion, having heard the evidence, that it should issue an injunction. If that were to happen, I should be most reluctant to take any action, except to say to the firm concerned "We are sorry but you will have to build your factory somewhere else. We shall do our best to help you on another site and in planning matters." If conditions are intolerable, we must leave these matters to the courts.
      The hon. Member for Newbury raised the novel concept that the House should take action to stop industrialists being at the mercy of the courts. I do not think that is a proposal which should be hallowed in legislation. We do our best to deal with pollution and it is for the court to interpret what we do. If we have to take action, we usually do so.
      The report on odours has always been envisaged as being in two parts. The second part will contain an appeal to the public at the end of the year, and my Department is giving substantial financial support to research which we know will be recommended in that report.
      I am sorry that I cannot advise the House to accept either of the new clauses.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 10

      CONTROL OF NOISE CAUSED BY MOTORWAYS
      (1) Notwithstanding the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, it shall be the duty of every local authority through which an urban motorway is constructed, to provide noise insulation for all dwellings and schools within 300 metres of the motorway.
      (2) Noise insulation within subsection 1 of this section shall be limited to each, and every,—

      (a) living room, bedroom and kitchen for dwellings,

      (b) classroom for schools.

      (3) For the purpose of this section, motorways are those motorways for which the Secretary of State is responsible and were opened after 1st January 1967.
      (4) The standard of insulation provided under this section shall not be less than that provided for buildings which are eligible within the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973.—[Mr. Snape.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House will agree that motorway developments in the past decade or so have brought economic advance to the regions and have been economically beneficial to the nation. However, regrettably, economic advances have been made at the expense of residents who are unfortunate enough to live close or immediately adjacent to motorways.
      When the Building (Noise Insulation) Regulations were debated in the House on 24th July 1973, the Under-Secretary of State at the time, Mr. Keith Speed, promised that a commonsense flexible approach would be adopted. Regrettably, since those regulations became law a commonsense and flexible approach has not been adopted. I know that in my constituency—and this also applies to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Walsall, South (Mr. George)—I am inundated by complaints from residents' associations and individual constituents about noise and pollution caused by motorways and by the inflexible approach which has been adopted despite ministerial promises made in 1973.

      935
      Is it a flexible and commonsense approach to offer to double glaze a bedroom window but not a lounge window 4 feet below it? Is it a flexible and commonsense approach that a house which is only 35 feet from a motorway is not covered by the regulations because the side of it immediately abutting the motorway consists of a kitchen, bathroom or hall entrance which are not regarded under the regulations as eligible rooms?
      It is likely that in the West Midlands generally appeals under the regulations will run into several thousands. Residents in my area and in neighbouring areas are considerably disturbed. The believe that Birmingham, and the West Midlands area generally, is being used to obtain case law on the regulations.
      There will be a tough fight by people to get reasonable terms. I realise, as do my hon. Friends who are also concerned with this matter, that the present Government did not make the regulations. My proposal is a common sense and flexible approach which should be used. In the clause we have taken a figure of dwellings and schools within 300 metres of a motorway simply because rate reductions have been allowed in the West Midlands area at such a maximum distance from a motorway. We also propose that living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens as well as classrooms should be included within the provision we suggest. We also propose that the standard of insulation provided should not be less than that provided for under the Noise Insulation Regulations.
      We ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that the well being and welfare of our constituents in the West Midlands should take consideration over any financial principles or difficulties which he may see arising from our clause.
      Mr. Denis Howell: This is a matter of some importance. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Government are extremely concerned about this new phenomenon of noise from motorways which have been driven through urban areas. I went to my hon. Friend's part of the country to look at some of the problems associated with this matter.
      The effect of the clause would be to impose a duty on local authorities to
      936
      insulate from noise all dwellings and schools within 300 miles—I should say, within 300 metres. Like other hon. Members, I find it difficult to move within the space of only 10 minutes from matters of sewerage facilities on trains and offensive smells to questions concerning motorways.
      The clause does not deal with hospitals. While my hon. Friend is properly concerned with schools, we are also concerned with hospitals, as I am sure he would be. Therefore, we intend to introduce as soon as possible new regulations enabling schools and hospitals to be protected from motorway noise. I hope that that meets part of my hon. Friend's concern. We also intend to review the existing regulations as a whole as soon as sufficient experience of their working has been gained. I hope that that assurance meets the remainder of his concern. Such a review would cover questions of eligibility.
      My hon. Friend said that he felt that his part of the world was being used as a sort of guinea pig for experimental purposes. There is some truth in that. Indeed, it is good sense to act in that way because it is in his area, as well as my constituency, that the difficulties we are discussing are being encountered and it is good sense to base new proposals for regulations on existing experience.
      However, it is not true to go as far as my hon. Friend did and say that it is necessary for a battle to be fought on this matter. Ministers are anxious to understand people's concern on matters such as this, and we shall be sympathetic and move as fast as possible to try to meet the difficulties. However, I cannot give an undertaking that any new regulations would be retrospective—
      Mr. Bruce George: Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter also involves complexities relating to the Land Compensation Act, which are perhaps of more immediate relevance? I have in mind a problem arising from the construction of a stretch of road in my constituency. People living within a certain area are eligible for compensation arising from works undertaken in building the new road, but other people in the neighbourhood are barred from receiving compensation. There are all sorts of complexities in these matters, but I

      937
      hope that my hon. Friend's assurances will result in some relief for people who are deafened by motorway noise.
      Mr. Howell: If the situation regarding compensation is as my hon. Friend has described, I regard it as nonsense, and it is no part of my duty as a Minister to have nonsense enacted by regulations. If my hon. Friend will let me have details I should be happy to look into the matter. We are giving this question active concern and we shall seek to tidy up any anomalies which may exist.
      I hope I have said enough to suggest that we not only accept and share the concern expressed but are moving to meet it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his clause.
      Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend has tried to be as adroit in refereeing this debate as he was in other fields before being elected to the House. Although we still have some misgivings, not on ministerial interpretations of regulations but, occasionally, on civil servants' interpretations, we accept the assurances which my hon. Friend has given and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 12

      DETERMINATION OF STANDARD LEVELS OF NOISE
      (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the maximum levels of noise that a local authority, in exercising its powers under sections 60, 61 or 62 of this Act, may permit from any premises or class of premises; and the same maximum levels shall apply in respect of all local authorities:
      Provided that no regulations made under this section shall come into effect until the expiration of five years from the date of passing of this Act.—[Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In his report on noise in 1963 Sir Alan Wilson referred to a questionnaire which he sent to local authorities about noise abatement legislation and about how successfully it was operating. In the replies received local authorities complained about the absence of prescribed standards
      938
      of what constituted noise nuisance. That was in 1963, and since then I do not think that anybody—certainly no one in any Governments during the period—has sought to establish exactly a level of noise nuisance. Therefore, it is proposed in the clause to give the Secretary of State power to do so, because without maximum noise levels being laid down within the new noise abatement zones we shall, I suspect, have a patchwork quilt of noise levels throughout the country.
      As I suggested on Second Reading, if maximum noise levels are not set, how on earth can we know whether we are achieving reduction in noise in the noise abatement zones? We have to start somewhere. It is not good enough to leave it to individual local authorities to decide how keen they should be on creating maximum noise levels appropriate to local amenities.
      My proposal is not just my own idea. In a draft Bill so carefully set out in its report, the Noise Advisory Council suggested that the local authority would be required to specify the level to which it was the authority's intention to restrict the emission of noise from any premises in the area to be designated.
      2.30 p.m.
      I like that phrasing. It seems to be about right. I am sorry that the previous Government and the present administration have run away from it and created in Clause 59 the statement that there shall be a noise level register stating noise levels from industrial factories and, in Clause 61, that if the level of noise emanating from any premises to which a noise abatement order applies is not acceptable, having regard to the purposes for which the order was made, and that a reduction in that level is practicable for a reasonable cost and would afford the public benefit, a notice to reduce the noise level may be served.
      Those two clauses, but particularly the second, have all the ifs in them to make them so permissive as to be without teeth.
      In the smoke control concept we had the simple idea that a certain colouring of smoke was unacceptable. Therefore, anybody could have a Ringelmann chart and use it to decide whether a particular smoke emission within the Clean Air Act was beyond the law.

      939
      We must have something similar for noise. We must start somewhere. We all know what an acceptable noise level is. If we are to make speeches about the control of pollution we must be serious and accept that we can reach a common noise level which will create the right environment within what we euphemistically call a noise abatement zone.
      Therefore, to produce permissive clauses and allow a local authority all the ways out that it may choose to take will not do much to improve the old Noise Abatement Act 1960.
      My intention is to seek something a little stronger and more definite that the local authorities will accept as the first noise level that they must achieve. I hope that we can then get a progressive reduction in that noise level so that our noise abatement zones will be as quite as we all want them to be.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I cannot advise the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
      I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like our new ideas about noise abatement zones which appear later in the Bill and our approach to them. They represent a radical new concept that we are writing into the Bill. I think that we all agree that a local authority should have power to register or record the totality of noise in a certain zone and ensure that nobody adds to it. Then, from time to time, orders may be made reducing it.
      The idea has lots of ifs and buts. However, with any practical approach to a problem there must be ifs and buts. We have had great success with this kind of approach to smoke abatement and preventing atmospheric pollution. We have only to look at London, with its buildings cleaned up, to see the success that has been achieved. It has taken a few years, but that practical approach has produced considerable benefits. This is true not only of London but of many other cities.
      We are trying to achieve with noise what we achieved with atmospheric pollution. In doing this, we realise that people have businesses and industries to run and must work in places which create noise. Therefore, we approach these
      940
      matters sensibly and in a practical manner. That is not what the clause does.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The Minister is making my argument for me. The Clean Air Act sets the same standards throughout the nation. That is what my clause would do. Secondly, the noise abatement zone is not the brainchild of either this or the previous administration; it is the brainchild of the Noise Advisory Council which drafted a clause which led to the point of my clause.
      Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to the second point.
      On the first point, we did not approach the clean air concept in the way that he suggested. We gave local authorities the powers and they interpreted them in accordance with circumstances in their areas. We did not say that on some day the Secretary of State shall make an order that the only colour of smoke coming from chimneys shall be light grey, dark grey or any other shade of grey. That was not the way with which we dealt with the matter and it is not the way with which we propose to deal with noise.
      It is true that the Wilson Committee suggested that certain standards should be established, but, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, that was more than 10 years ago. We have made a lot of progress since. There have been great technological advances and more information is available.
      If we accept the proposal, there are two ways in which the Government could establish these noise levels. They might be too high or too low for various parts of the country. If the limit was to include industrial premises it would need to be very high—unacceptably high for other parts of the country which do not suffer from industrial noise nuisance. Therefore, that would be unsatisfactory. If the limit was too low it would put large numbers of industrial concerns out of action. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that the best way to approach the matter is to ask local authorities to deal with industries in their areas on their merits and to move as fast as we know they wish to move to meet the situation. There is no practical alternative to establishing these zones than allowing local

      941
      authorities to deal with every case on its merits. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the clause.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 13

      EMISSION OF POLLUTANTS FROM PREMISES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PLANNING APPLICATION IS MADE
      (1) A county or district planning authority or a joint or special planning board for a national park may require an applicant for planning permission under the Town and County Planning Act 1971 to furnish information concerning the emission of pollutants and other substances into the air from any premises in respect of which the application is made.
      (2) This section shall not apply to premises in so far as they consist of a private dwelling.—[Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause is based on the speech made by Lord Molson on Report stage of the Bill in the House of Lords. It turns upon one single issue: whether a local authority should have powers, before planning permission is granted, to know the likely strength of an emission from a plant that is to be put up, or to leave the situation as it is. By that I mean that only after the plant has been built can the emission be judged by the local authority, since the Alkali Inspectorate is at present the authority which decides whether or not an emission is acceptable.
      I do not propose to take up the time of the House on this matter because the noble Lord Molson put the argument extremely well. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on the subject.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry to continue to disappoint the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), especially as he has put his argument so persuasively and reasonably.
      I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind the clause. It is important that possible emissions into the atmosphere should be taken into account by
      942
      local planning authorities when considering planning applications. However, local authorities already have full powers to obtain this information. Therefore, in our judgment the clause is not necessary.
      The existing power is contained in Article 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973, under which a local planning authority may require such information as it may specify to enable it to determine a planning application. The Government's view is that local authorities should be encouraged to do this and that no planning application should be granted until the local authority has taken full account of the effect of the pollution that is likely to be caused as a result of the granting of an application. If we thought that there was any doubt about it, we would move in this direction.
      I hope I have assured the hon. Gentleman that his fears and the fears of the noble Lord are not well founded.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 15

      COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
      Where regulations are made in pursuance of Section 27(5) or a notice is served under Section 47(3) compensation shall be payable to the owner or occupier of any land over which good agricultural or horticultural practices are restricted to the extent of any loss consequential upon the making of the regulation of the serving of the notice.—[Mr. Ralph Howell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      There is widespread concern in the agriculture industry about the wide powers embodied in the Bill for the restriction of the application of organic and inorganic fertilisers. Such restriction would create tremendous hardship for farmers and owner-occupiers since there is no provision for compensation. The Bill nullifies the provisions of Section 18 of the Water Act 1945 which provide for

      943
      compensation to be paid when the use of fertilisers is restricted near boreholes and aquifers.
      Farmers will suffer a severe loss if they are not allowed to use normal agricultural practice in the application of fertilisers. There would be serious loss to the occupier and to the owner if restrictions were imposed, because the value of the land would be considerably reduced.
      The payment of compensation would deter farmers from using fertilisers too enthusiastically for the purpose of increasing the food supply. A proper balance should be struck between the ever-increasing importance of food production and concern about the pollution of rivers.
      The main worry is about nitrates which enter watercourses. Only 10 blue babies have been born in this country since 1950. In one or two areas of Norfolk and Suffolk watercourses have been polluted by nitrates, but only to a very small extent. The problem can be overcome by providing pure water for young babies to drink.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the clause.
      2.45 p.m.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I cannot advise the House to write such an unlimited financial undertaking into the Bill. Although one may have sympathy with farmers in their many problems, the Control of Pollution Bill is not the vehicle by which those problems can be tackled.
      It is a little hard when we are being told to control public expenditure for hon. Members one after another to advocate courses that will cost the Exchequer a great deal of money. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman expects this compensation to be paid by the Exchequer. That is not clear from the new clause.
      The clause gives the right of compensation to an owner or occupier of agricultural or horticultural land who suffers financial loss as the result of the making of a regulation under Clause 27(5) or the issuing of a notice under Clause 47 asking the farmer or the person concerned to combine good agricultural practice with the requirement to prevent pollution.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I am not asking for that. All I am asking is that compensation should be paid to a farmer who is restricted from using organic or inorganic fertilisers to the extent which is classified as good agricultural practice. If he is prevented from using those fertilisers, his land will become virtually sterile and he will suffer tremendous loss.
      Mr. Denis Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I shall take the matter a little further. The essence of what the hon. Gentleman is asking is this. Under the Bill an authority may ask a farmer or horitcultural user not to persist in using certain fertilisers because they are causing pollution. The hon. Gentleman suggests that when that happens the farmer should be compensated. In other words, he is asking that people should be compensated for not polluting the countryside. That cannot be right. We cannot give compensation to people who cease to pollute the countryside, and that is the objection to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. No one should be compensated for refraining from causing pollution.
      The clause is in conflict with the principle laid down some time ago by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and generally accepted, that the polluter must pay for pollution which he causes.
      The Bill contains machinery designed to ensure that restrictions are not imposed unless there is adequate proof that they are necessary to prevent pollution. There is no suggestion that water authorities or local authorities will rush in and do something to harm agricultural interests or farmers generally. They will have regard to practice in other parts of the country. If it is necessary to take action because of severe pollution hazards, they have a duty to do so, but it is wrong that the community should be expected to pay compensation to the farming community for observing the notices.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: Although I have the most serious misgivings about the Ministers reply, I am grateful for the assurance that the Bill will be used with the utmost care and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      PROHIBITION OF UNLICENSED DISPOSAL OF WASTE
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 40, after 'waste', insert:
      'other than for the purposes of recycling or reclaiming'.
      It deals with the definition in subsection (1)(a), where reference is made to the prohibition on depositing controlled waste on any land, or causing or knowingly permitting it to be deposited. The British Paper and Board Industry Federation is concerned about the matter. The federation suggests that another definition is required, and that is set out in the amendment. First, there is the need to distinguish dumped matter from usable raw material. The situation can be easily envisaged, particularly in the waste paper industry with its activities in recycling paper and board, where a tremendous amount of this type of material is gathered together in a dump but is subsequently brought forward for use. It is suggested that without a clear definition to cover those circumstances the industry might be in contravention of the Bill and would be guilty of an offence which the clause never intended should exist. The definition also has significant effects on succeeding paragraphs in which the implication is that board mills, for example, storing waste paper on their own ground ready for processing, might have to apply for a licence. I do not think that is what the Bill intends.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I hope I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) that the amendment is unnecessary. This is a further attempt to remove from the effects of Part I those wastes which are to be recycled or reclaimed, but we cannot deal with the matter as has been suggested by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in Standing Committee.
      The difficulty is to decide what is to be fully recycled and what is to be partially recycled. It is not possible in practice to put the processes referred to into one category or the other. Some
      946
      chemical plants have been the source of very nasty effluents, and, although those effluents are being used in a recycling process, they have to be dealt with. These are two aspects of one problem. I can give an ssurance, however, that we fully appreciate the force of the arguments the industrialists have been using in support of excluding recycling and reclamation from licensing control. There is no intention on our part to extend the licensing system further than is necessary to bring waste disposal under control, btu we thought it right for the reasons I have set out to give ourselves elbow room or flexibility.
      Clause 4(3) indicates some of the factors the Secretary of State will have in mind in making exemptions, and these include temporary deposits, small deposits, innocuous use of plant or equipment and processes for which adequate controls exist in other legislation. I hope that these provisions will alleviate the worries of industry. We believe that they should do so and that there is no need to fear arbitrary decisions in this matter.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful for the reply. I take the point that this has been carefully considered, and I am happy to accept the assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

    Clause 4

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 3
      Mr. Dennis Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'water' to 'a' in line 3, and insert:
      'which covers any laid above low-water mark of ordinary spring tides and is not water in'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also consider Government Amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Howell: These are technical amendments to deal with gravel pits and wet holes of one sort and another, and to bring them within the scope of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 4 in page 7, line 4, leave out from ' Act ' to end of subsection.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 7

      VARIATION OF CONDITIONS AND REVOCATION OF LICENCES
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 11, line 36, at end insert—
      Provided that if a disposal authority has under paragraph (b) of this subsection disregarded a water authority or. in Scotland, a river purification authority and it appears to the water authority or the river purification authority (as the case may be) that the activities permitted by the conditions specified in the disposal licence, as modified by the disposal authority, are causing or are likely to cause pollution to relevant waters (within the meaning of Part II of this Act) in the area of the authority, the authority may request the Secretary of State to direct the disposal authority to cancel or alter the conditions specified in the disposal licence as so modified and it shall be the duty of the disposal authority to comply with the direction given to it in pursuance of this subsection.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also consider Amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 5, at end insert—
      '(4A) if it appears to a water authority or in Scotland. to a river purification authority that the continuation of activities permitted by the conditions specified in a disposal licence would cause pollution to relevant waters (within the meaning of Part II of this Act) in the area of the authority, and the disposal authority which issued the disposal licence has on the request of the water authority or the river purification authority, as the case may be, refused to serve a notice on the holder of the licence revoking the licence, the water authority or the river purification authority, as the case may be, may request the Secretary of State to direct the disposal authority to serve a notice under subsection (4) of this section on the holder of the licence; and it shall be the duty of the disposal authority to comply with a direction given to it in pursuance of this subsection.
      Mr. Jones: The Amendment seeks to deal with the concern that has been expressed by the National Water Council about the relative interests of the authorities concerned. The wording at the end of Clause 5(4) enables the water authority to refer cases to the Secretary of State where it disagrees with the disposal authority about the issue of a licence or the conditions to be imposed. Subsection (2) carries that provision into this clause but because of the wording of Clause 5 the water authority is only given the right
      948
      of reference if the proposal is referred to the authority by a disposal authority. In cases involving the issue of a licence reference must always be made to the water authority but subsection (2)(b) creates exceptions to that rule where it is proposed to vary the conditions.
      The point of the amendments is that the authorities will be expected to, and of course will, co-operate satisfactorily in practice, but cases could arise where the water interests were prejudiced without this being intended by the disposal authority or without its even being known until after the event. Therefore, while leaving a discretion to the disposal authority and thus maintaining administrative flexibility, the amendment provides a necessary safeguard, just as Clause 11(9) allows a water authority to intervene in the case of a disposal authority's own site.
      3.0 p.m.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Clause 7 concerns the variation and revocation of licences by the disposal authority. The circumstances in which that can happen are spelt out in subsection (1). A disposal authority is required to vary conditions wherever necessary to avoid danger to public health or water pollution or serious detriment to amenity and in certain other circumstances. The amendments would give water authorities a right to intervene, to secure variation or revocation where they thought it necessary, by application to the Secretary of State. This seems to us much too cumbersome a procedure, which would not foster the good relations that we want between the disposal authorities and the water authorities, on which implementation of the Bill will depend.
      The proper thing for a water authority to do if it gets itself into difficulty is to bring the matter to the attention of the disposal authorities. We cannot think that, given the traditional good sense which exists between public bodies, local authorities and so on, there would not then be agreement. There is no reason to suppose that the disposal authorities would be reluctant to do whatever was necessary. Indeed, if it were water pollution that the water authority was concerned about, the disposal authority would have a positive duty to vary the licence, for the reasons I gave. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will

      949
      share my belief that the amendment will in practice not be necessary and that we can rely on the good sense of the public authorities concerned.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I share that view, and, in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      TRANSFER AND RELINQUISHMENT OF LICENCES
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 in page 12, line 30, at end insert:
      Provided that a disposal authority may on receipt of such a notice serve a counter notice on the holder of the disposal licence requiring him within such reasonable period as may be specified in the counter notice either to reinstate the land to which the licence relates to the condition in which it was before the licence was issued or to take such measures as may be reasonably necessary to prevent pollution of water or danger to public health or injury to the amenities of the locality and, if within the period specified in the counter notice the holder of the disposal licence has failed to take the action specified therein, the disposal authority may enter on the land, take such action and recover from the holder of the licence the reasonable costs thereby incurred by it. A holder of a disposal licence may appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirement of a disposal authority under this subsection.
      The amendment relates to another point which has been raised by the National Water Council. The clause deals with the transfer and relinquishment of licences. I understand that the water authority advisers have expressed concern at the possibility of a licence holder's cancelling his licence at a time convenient to himself, or allowing it to lapse in certain events—perhaps when he has derived the maximum profit from his site and does not wish to incur the expense of putting it into a proper state when the licence deposits come to an end, or of complying with the conditions which remain to be fulfilled at a later date. In other words, a person shall not suddenly be able to terminate the arrangements under which he is working a site.
      The amendment would ensure that a licence cannot be revoked or cancelled when that may be prejudicial to any outstanding proceedings for breach of con-
      950
      dition. This point is expressly made by Clause 9(4) but not by Clause 8(4). Neither this provision nor anything in Clause 16 seems to require a licence holder to meet his contingent liabilities, which may be disposed of by a premature cancellation. The amendment seeks to provide the necessary safeguard against that eventuality.
      Mr. Denis Howell: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would enable the authority to require a licence holder to restore his land before ceasing operations or, in default of doing so, to carry out work itself at the holder's expense. I appreciate that objective but suggest that the procedure proposed is too complex and in any case unnecessary since restoration requirements are primarily a matter for planning control.
      We should bear it in mind that there always has to be the element of dual control under the new system. First, there will be a planning application, at which stage the planning authority will have to determine whether waste disposal should be permitted on the site at all and what general planning conditions should be imposed before the application is granted. There will then be a licence application, which is what we are dealing with, and the licence will be able to impose more detailed operating conditions on the site. So the two proposals will interlock.
      The restoration of a site after waste disposal operations for some long-term use is essentially one of the questions to be considered by the planning authority on the planning application and embodied in the planning conditions. As I have said, the Government would like to see planning authorities making absolutely certain that they take the long-term consequences of granting applications into account when considering them. The licensing control is intended to deal with the day-to-day operating conditions. It would not be appropriate in our judgment to go into details of restoration or reinstatement. By the same token, it would not be appropriate for the disposal authorities to seek to enforce compliance with reinstatement conditions on a licence holder who gives up his licence.
      In any case, we think the proposal unreasonable. The amendment refers to the reinstating of land to which the

      951
      licence relates to the condition that it was in before the licence was granted. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about this for a moment I am sure he will appreciate that with a site on which tipping was taking place that would not be practicable. It would not be possible to go back to the state in which the land was before the licence was granted. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that this amendment is unnecesary.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Gentleman has by no means satisfied me. I hardly think that he convinced himself, particularly when he brought in the question of the planning issues involved. I had not associated them with this. We all know of occasions when planning conditions have not been fulfilled for all sorts of reasons, through neglect or companies going into liquidation. As a result we have tremendous areas of dereliction. Inadequate control by planning authorities is widespread and has been through the years. This is fundamental to what the Bill is trying to ensure.
      How can we accept without question the possibility that a licence holder may suddenly pack up operations? That is surely not what the Minister intended to say, that a licence holder should take this sudden decision and that there should be no assurance that matters will be dealt with properly and effectively monitored. It should not be possible unilaterally to cancel a licence. I cannot think that the Minister has given enough thought to this. I hope that he will give an assurance that the matter will be looked at a little more carefully.
      Mr. Denis Howell: By leave of the House. I think we are in difficulties. I accept that I may not have given enough thought to this. We are trying to deal with things in a hurry. I have tried to give it as much thought as I can. It does not seem to us that it will be appropriate or practical to impose this requirement upon a licence holder. The licensing control is intended to deal with day-to-day operations.
      It would not be appropriate to go into details for restoration or reinstatement. That is why I mentioned planning. We are dealing with the boundary between planning and licensing. These interact
      952
      one upon the other. For this reason I do not think it would be appropriate for the disposal authority to seek to enforce compliance with reinstatement provisions. We have given some thought to this. We do not think it is practical but I will give more thought to it in the 48 hours I have left before the Bill is recommitted to another place. If there is anything in the hon. Gentleman's assertion which arises from my lack of time for adequate thought, as he kindly put it, we will seek to deal with it. At the moment I do not think that he is right.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR LAND OCCUPIED BY DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 15, line 21, at end insert:
      'and to any other prescribed person'.
      No. 9, in page 16, line 2, at end insert:
      'and to any other prescribed person'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 12

      COLLECTION OF WASTE
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 18, line 55, at end insert:
      '; and any charges which are payable under this subsection in respect of a cesspool shall be paid by the water authority in whose area the cesspool is situated'.
      The intention of the amendment is to give water authorities the power to pay to local authorities the charges or expenses incurred by those local authorities in emptying cesspools belonging to private individuals. The reason for the amendment is as follows.
      At present it appears that it is possible for persons not connected to a main sewer and who have their own cesspools to be charged twice over. They are charged first by the water authority in respect of a sewerage and drainage rate. This year that has been considerable in many areas and has caused a good deal of anxiety. At the same time those people who are paying the drainage charge when they are

      953
      not connected to the main sewerage system—and who feel that they are paying for a service from which they do not directly benefit—feel that insult is added to injury when the local authority comes along and makes yet another charge for emptying their cesspools.
      At the moment there is no way out of that difficulty without legislation. The water authorities have to charge the drainage rate on all properties in the country. Local authorities have the power, and they frequently exercise it, to charge for emptying cesspools, otherwise that would be a burden on the ratepayers generally.
      In Committee the Minister was good enough to say that he would look into the question of whether it was right that such people should have to pay a charge to the water authorities. He said it was not something which could be put right in the immediate future, certainly not this year, because, curiously enough, there was the administrative difficulty of identifying the 1 million people throughout the country who were in this predicament.
      3.15 p.m.
      Therefore, although relief might be given to those people against the sewerage and drainage rate in another year, it cannot be given in this financial year. However, what can be done is to relieve them of the burden of having to pay the extra charge to have their cesspools emptied by the local authorities. That can be done simply by treating the local authorities as acting as the agents for the water authorities in emptying the cesspools, and making their charge not to the individual whose cesspools they have emptied but to the water authority.
      I believe that there will be no problem once Parliament gives the necessary powers for the payment to be made from one authority to the other. I believe that there is sufficient revenue in most water authorities this year to meet that payment. The Minister shakes his head. We on the Opposition benches have made inquiries to see what measure of relief could be given. From those inquiries, which we made at a very high level because we are anxious about the problem, we are satisfied that this could be done if the Government were prepared to accept the necessary amendment to the Bill.
      954
      We canvassed the matter in Committee, where the Minister said that he would consider it very sympathetically.
      Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new water authorities are held up on their main water and sewerage contracts because of lack of finance?
      Mr. Rossi: I can only repeat what I have been told. I do not know all the ins and outs of the authorities' finances, but I have been told that this is a matter with which they can deal in the present situation. Therefore, it struck me as a simple remedy and a just way of dealing with the problem.
      I hope that the amendment will recommend itself to the House as a means of bringing immediate relief to the people concerned so that they do not have to pay a double charge.
      Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment. I come from a rural constituency where many of my constituents are not on main drainage and where, for the first time, their sewerage charge has been excessive and has caused an enormous outcry. West Derbyshire is no different from many other rural areas. The fact that the people concerned have to pay a separate charge for the emptying of their cesspools when for the first time they have had a sewage disposal charge identified in their rate demand has caused enormous unrest and bad feeling throughout my part of the world.
      I do not wish to take up time with an emotive speech about how hard-done-by my constituents are, but I hope that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will be heard with sympathy by the Minister, and that there will be some form of relief—perhaps only for an interim period, until the new water authorities have been able to work out a system for having a smaller charge for those who are not connected to main sewerage. I hope that the Minister will find a means to alleviate what my constituents and I consider to be a grossly unjust charge.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I voted against the Water Act 1973, and I have said that as a result of the pressures to put it on the statute book with great haste it was ill-considered. Having undertaken

      955
      to meet the point for next year, I do not think that I can be accused of any lack of sympathy, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) wished to accuse me of that.
      I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that the sewerage charge was an extra charge. It is not. It is a charge which people have been paying for years. The fact is that they did not realise that. We now have to deal with the situation.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Although the charge has been there, it has been hidden in the general rate demand. Now it is identifiable, and this year it has increased enormously in nearly every area. That is why there is unrest.
      Mr. Howell: I agree that ratepayers are up in arms because of the new administrative costs the previous Government imposed on them, not only under the Water Act but as a result of local government reorganisation. Every ratepayer now has. to pay for two treasurers where he had one before and for two planning departments where he had one before. We predicted all this. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman's ratepayers are up in arms, although I am sorry about it. We shall deal with the mess as soon as we can, but we cannot do it the day after we come to power, which is what we are being asked to do. One presumes that the National Water Council was established so that it could be consulted on matters of this kind. It is hardly credible that we should put an amendment of this sort in a Bill before we have had the advice of the council. I sought that advice as a matter of urgency. The council promised to give me advice on how to deal with these unfortunate householders within three months. I can assure the House that as soon as I have that advice I shall try to put it in a sensible form and ensure that it applies for next year.
      I am not sure that the amendment would help any more speedily than the Government intend to act, because the Bill cannot operate before 1st April next year. I have already given an undertaking that I intend to deal with the matter before then by introducing our own proposals. We have asked the
      956
      National Water Council to tell us, as a matter of urgency, how it proposes to deal with the complex issue involved.
      I must take issue with the hon. Member for Hornsey who says that he has been told at a high level that the water industry would find it possible to take on this task this year. I must tell him that that is not what the industry is telling me. I cannot believe that the high-level people to whom he is talking are saying one thing to the Opposition and something different to the Government. When my right hon. Friend and I met the Chairman of the National Water Council and when we met all the regional chairmen we pressed them strongly and asked them how far they could go, bearing in mind that people are now paying for a service that they do not get. We would have liked to do something immediately had we been able to do so. They made it clear to us for various reasons that they would have to consider the matter.
      I shall give the hon. House some examples of the complexities. In many instances, for example, people have chosen not to connect their premises with the main sewerage system although the system is provided and a connection could be made.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: No.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Perhaps that does apply in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world, but in many parts that happens to be the position. I cannot legislate for Norfolk, North alone. I have to have regard to the effect of legislation throughout the country. What do we do about the man who has these community services available and will not use them?
      Then there is the question of payments. Sewage disposal payments vary widely throughout the country. Payments in Wales, for many reasons, are often higher than in other areas. That variation applies regionally throughout the country. The median charge for the average house is about 6½p in the pound or, roughly speaking, about £13 per year. I think that the House will agree that we get a good service for that sort of charge. We must bear in mind that cesspools need emptying frequently and we must relate the charge of f13 to the need to empty a cesspool at least once a month. Some cesspools require emptying more

      957
      than once a month. Some areas require the emptying of cesspools twice and three times a month depending on the use, the size and other factors. The National Water Council has to think about that.
      If we are to give the obligation to the local authority to carry out this task and charge the water authorities, how shall we deal with the variation of requirements in rural areas? That is a difficult matter and not one on which it is possible without some thought, to lay down a hard and fast scheme.
      The hon. Member for Hornsey said that the intention was to give the water authorities the power to pay local authorities. I have no doubt that he will appreciate that the amendment makes that obligatory. It is not in any way accepted for that reason. The order imposes a poundage sewerage charge on all properties, and it applies, as the House will know, only for 1974 and 1975. It would be difficult in such an order to exclude people who cannot connect next year. Because of the complexities of legislation, I am bound to end up by advising the House that it is not possible to accept the amendment.
      I hope that the House and everyone concerned will accept my categoric assurance, which I have now given on several occasions, that the Government are acting with every possible urgency. We intend to deal with this matter for next year, but on practical grounds it is not possible to take it aboard during the current financial year for all the reasons that I have given.
      I regret to say this, but water authorities tell us that by the end of the year they are all likely to be in deficit. Therefore, it is not correct to say that money would be available for use in the way suggested by the hon. Member.
      I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment to deal with this unfortunate matter this year, but I assure everyone concerned that the Government have every intention to deal with it for next year and for the future thereafter.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has adopted such a negative attitude to the amendment. I thought he would give genuine and sympathetic consideration to the solution I presented to him in Committee. To dismiss it in the way he has dismissed
      958
      it today is disappointing. Not only the Government but the House would score if common sense prevailed and the amendment were accepted.
      The argument that this has always occurred is a poor one. People in rural areas such as mine now realise that they have for years been paying double for something they were not getting. That is no reason why the situation should continue. It could be rectified simply by accepting the amendment.
      The argument that the Bill will not come into operation before April next year and that therefore nothing can be done about this matter until then is very weak. Even accepting that nothing can be done before April—and I do not accept it; I think that something exceptional could be done if there were the will—if this proposal were accepted people in my area and elsewhere who are paying twice would have the assurance that something would be done about it, next April.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I have given that assurance.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider what he has said.
      It has been argued that the water authorities are not in a financial position to do what we suggest. The Anglian Water Authority, which covers my constituency, proposed to spend £40,000 on improving its image. A public relations exercise was to be mounted. However, I read recently that due to considerable pressure, the figure has been reduced to £20,000. The operation and expenditure of such water authorities should be considered seriously.
      If the Minister would reconsider the stance he has taken on the amendment, it would he to the credit of the Government and the House.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I have great sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), but it is not right for him to say that people have been paying twice over. Their rateable assessments are less because their properties are not on main services, and that should be made abundantly clear.
      I too have a septic tank on my property and I do not object to contributing to

      959
      the general sewerage rate. I agree that the position should be brought home to people and that something should be done about it. Most water authorities are very short of money; they lost £130 million over the transfer of responsibilities.
      3.30 p.m.
      Mr. Rossi: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I share his disappointment at the answer we have received from the Minister of State. We accept the difficulties regarding the question of the sewerage and drainage charge and how this can be most equitably dealt with for people who are not connected to services. I recognise the problems, which the hon. Gentleman has indicated, where some people could be connected but do not wish to be. Matters of this kind all have to be investigated, and it will take a certain amount of time.
      But the Government are in the saddle now and they have the power and the means to give relief if they are so minded. I had understood that the water authorities would be in a position to do so, but information has now been given to us that perhaps the information I received was mistaken. The matter still lies with the Government, however. They can still help in the circumstances if they wish, and they can do so this year. One way of dealing with the matter would be to make funds available from Government sources to water authorities to meet this charge.
      Will the Minister of State in the next day or so have talks with the National Water Council? He says that his Department is in contact with the council and, of course, the Chairman is frequently in the other place only a few yards away from this House. The Minister might be able to discuss with the chairman ways in which a solution can be found, as I believe it can be, this year, not to the overall question of the sewerage and drainage rate, which is another matter, but to the charge which has to be paid this year for the cleaning and emptying of cesspools. This would be a widely welcomed gesture by the Government.
      If the amendment would not be as effective as it might otherwise be because of the date of operation of the Bill, it
      960
      is always possible in another place to insert a new clause stating that a particular part of the Bill shall come into operation at an earlier date than the main part. That is frequently done. Where there is a will there is a way.
      I am making no carping criticism of the Minister because I know that he has been trying within the limits of his brief to deal with the matter urgently, and he feels that he is unable to do anything before next year. I ask him, however, to have the conversations I have suggested in a spirit of desire to help this year if at all possible. If, as a result of those discussions, he perhaps finds it easier to do what is suggested than he now thinks no doubt he will take action. I ask the hon. Gentleman for no more than an assurance that he will take this further step within the next few days.
      Mr. Denis Howell: Naturally I wanted to do it this year. if I could, I would. I am always ready to rectify the mistakes of the Conservative Party and to do so as quickly as I can. The difficulty in which the Opposition now find themselves is that they voted for that piece of nonsense, the Water Act 1973. We voted against it and warned the House and the country what its consequences would be. The subject we are now discussing is one of the smaller matters which have arisen from the operation of the Act.
      The Opposition are now pressing me because they have to react to the considerable pressures they are facing from their ratepayers, not only on this matter but over the whole range of local government reorganisation, which is proving so expensive to ratepayers as a whole.
      Apart from the difficulties we have already encountered, there is one other patent absurdity from the point of view of equity that would arise from the amendment. It would enable cesspool owners to be free of any charge for sewerage because, while the local authority would not be providing the service, the owners would still be entitled to require the water authorities—the rest of us—at our expense to empty their cesspools as frequently as they would like and without any charge being levied.
      The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) dealt with this matter and

      961
      there was mention of double charging. The question is not as simple as that. Septic tanks and cesspools must be emptied, and if they are treated what is the proper amount of money to be charged? Furthermore, such householders can obtain other advantages from the sewerage services. Certainly, great difficulties might well arise in terms of the public health situation if these services did not exist. It is a matter of great complexity and we cannot at a stroke exempt a large number of people from the charge.
      I shall do all I can to assist the situation. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned one water authority which had spent a good deal of money on public relations. If he goes on campaigning in that way, a figure of £20,000 will not be enough for that authority to correct the unfortunate information which lie has given to the House. I am concerned over the question of the high salaries paid in many of the water authorities and the large motor cars which are available for official use. None of these matters was sanctioned during our tour of office. They come within the responsibility of the former Conservative Government. We shall look at the matter as soon as we can and take what action we consider to be necessary.
      I sympathise with what has been said and the difficulties that have been outlined, but I have given assurances that the matter will be dealt with in the next financial year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel that they will receive more sympathetic treatment of their grievances under a Labour Government than was the case under the previous Conservative administration.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: I am sure the Minister well knows that I was pressing for free emptying of tanks and not an ad lib arrangement. That was certainly the matter that I pressed in Committee.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 19, line 4, after 'pipes', insert 'and associated works'.
      No. 14, in page 19, line 7, after first 'pipes' insert ' or associated works'.
      No. 15, in page 19, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
      (6A) Parts V and VI of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (which relate to the laying of mains and the breaking up of streets) shall apply in relation to pipes and associated works provided or to be provided in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection as those Parts apply in relation to water mains and pipes but as if—

      (a) sections 19(4) and 21 of that Schedule (which relate to the erection of street notices and the laying of service pipes) were omitted, and in section 22 of that Schedule the words "which they are authorised to lay" were omitted; and

      (b) for any reference to undertakers or limits of supply there were substituted respectively a reference to the authority in question and the area of the authority; and

      (c) for the reference to the Special Act in section 25(4) of that Schedule there were substituted a reference to this subsection;

      and the Pipelines Act 1962 shall not apply to pipes or associated works provided or to be provided in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection.'
      No. 16, in page 19, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '(b) for subsection (6A) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
      "(6A) Sections 2, 3, 4 and 41 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (which relate to the maintenance etc. of public sewers and other works and the breaking open of streets etc.) shall apply in relation to pipes and associated works provided or to be provided in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection as those sections apply in relation to public sewers but as if—

      (a) the said section 2, conferred a power, and did not impose a duty, on a local authority to do the things mentioned in that section; and

      (b) in the said section 4, the words from "but, before any person" to the end were omitted; and the Pipe-lines Act 1962 shall not apply to pipes and associated works provided or to be provided in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection".'

      No. 17, in page 19, line 43, after 'Crown', insert
      'but exclude waste as to which the Commissioners executing the Crown Estate Paving Act 1851 (which among other things relates to premises in the Regent's Park) make arrangements for its collection'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 14

      DISPOSAL OF WASTE IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 23, line 6, leave out ' Subsection (6)' and insert' Subsections (6) and (6A)'.
      No. 19, in page 23, line 7, after 'reference', insert
      'in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (6)'.
      No. 20, in page 23, line 29, at end insert—
      '(6A) A collection authority and the relevant disposal authority may enter into an agreement for the making by either authority to the other of such payments as may be determined by or under the agreement in respect of waste collected by the collection authority in pursuance of section 12 of this Act including, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, an agreement for the making of payments to the collection authority in respect of such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.'
      No. 21, in page 23, line 30, at beginning insert
      'Except as otherwise agreed in pursuance of the preceding subsection,'.
      No. 22, in page 23, line 32, leave out from such' to end of paragraph and insert
      'sums as are needed to defray the reasonable cost to the disposal authority of disposing of commercial and industrial waste delivered to the disposal authority by the collection authority in pursuance of this section; and'.
      No. 23, in page 23, line 46, after 'arising' insert
      'in pursuance of paragraph (a) of this subsection as to what cost is reasonable or'.
      No. 81, in page 24, line 4, after (4) insert '(6A)'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 15

      DISPOSAL OF WASTE IN SCOTLAND
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Subsections (6) and (6A) of section 12 of this Act shall have effect in relation to a Scottish disposal authority as if the reference in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (6) to the collection of waste in pursuance of that section included the disposal of waste in pursuance of this section and the disposal of anything produced from waste belonging to the authority.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 21

      STREET CLEANING ETC
      Amendments made: No. 26. in page 30A, line 1, at end insert
      'and in section (Prohibition of parking to facilitate street cleaning) of this Act.'.
      No. 27, in page 30A, line 11, at end insert
      'and in this section and in section (Prohibition of parking to facilitate street cleaning) of this Act'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 26

      INTERPRETATION ETC. OF PART I
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 34, line 7, at end insert—
      ' "associated works", in relation to pipes, means any of the following connected with the pipes, namely, any valve, filter, stopcock, pump, inspection chamber and manhole and such other works as are prescribed; '
      No. 29, in page 36, line 18, at end insert—
      'In this subsection "sewage" includes matter in or from a privy within the meaning of section 12(5) of this Act.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 27

      CONTROL OF POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND COASTAL WATERS ETC
      The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 37, line 22, at end insert any prescribed enactment, or'.
      This is a technical amendment to enable the Secretary of State to remove conflicts since some of the previous enactments enable substances to be put into water. Unless the Secretary of State has power by regulation to exempt these matters, there will be a conflict between the various provisions.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Cranley Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11.
      I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Salmon and Trout Association, and I am also fortunate enough to be able from time to time to fish in Wales. My interest in this matter stems from a letter from the Welsh National Water Development Authority, a copy of which was sent to me. The authority is concerned about the effect of the reference to abandoned mines in Clause 27 of the Bill as it stands. It points out that
      "in Wales there are many abandoned mines, both coal and metalliferous, from which contaminated water flows so as to cause pollution problems in local watercourses. The

      965
      Committee at their meeting on Friday had before them a report on a recent and continuing pollution of the Afon Lwyd almost certainly caused by the cessation of pumping by the National Coal Board at Blaenavon Pit in September last year. Although the National Coal Board have agreed to resume pumping while the problem is being investigated this incident demonstrates the way in which large scale improvements in river quality achieved over many years with the co-operation of public and private bodies can be nullified by the drainage from an abandoned mine."
      This is a potentially serious problem. People do an enormous amount of work to clean and improve rivers, and it would be a tragedy if waters were made useless as amenities and became unfishable because of provisions absolving anyone from responsibility in relation to abandoned mines.
      I understand that the Minister is advised not to accept the amendment. He may rely on the ground that there is no money available. That is a standard ground on which all Ministers rely before they think of other better grounds, although often there are no other better grounds. It would be a pity if that were regarded as the best line of defence against the amendment.
      In Clause 45 of the Bill there is an interesting and useful provision to enable water authorities to undertake studies into water pollution problems arising from the closure of mines. But nowhere in the Bill can I find anything which empowers local authorities to do anything about conclusions they may reach as a result of their studies. However, it is evidently envisaged that this is a problem which local authorities may want to examine.
      The Minister may also be advised that Clause 41 probably gives the Secretary of State or somebody else power of a kind in relation to mines where there is a question as to whether they have been abandoned or not. No doubt lawyers will have a field day arguing whether a mine has been abandoned while the water seeps out merrily, killing fish for miles around.
      There is no real defence in either of the arguments which I think the Minister may have in mind. Nor is there a guarantee that we shall not see waters being killed in the way that the Welsh National Water Development Authority and many fishermen and other people fear.
      966
      Why are the words which my amendment seeks to leave out included in the Bill at this time? I do not believe that they were in the original draft of the legislation. No particular reason for having them has been advanced to the House, although it might have been argued in another place.
      3.45 p.m.
      I welcome the proposal to make powers relating to working mines stricter. But it would be a great pity if much good which may be done in that respect is in danger of being undone because of what appears to be a more or less absolute exemption for abandoned mines. I had hoped that in legislation it might be possible to state that in future no one could abandon responsibility for water seeping from a mine until the responsible water authority had carried out the studies which Clause 45 empowers it to carry out and a licence had been issued to the previous operators or owners which entitled them to spend no more money on it and simply to let it go, or alternatively, that a stipulation had been put upon them that they must leave some kind of safeguarding works to minimise the danger of pollution. That would have been greatly to the public advantage. I see nothing in the legislation which would make that possible.
      Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, may be able to give us some encouragement that the National Coal Board, or any other major mine operator which is likely to abandon a mine or to cease pumping works in a mine which prevent pollution, will give an interim guarantee that we shall not see the situation suddenly deteriorate.
      I hope that the Minister understands my concern, which I share with the water authority, and will be able to reassure me on this matter. However, I must tell him that although I have looked carefully at the Bill I do not see in it the power that I hoped to see. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give an undertaking on behalf of the National Coal Board which will provide some interim safeguard.
      Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will understand that the principle that he has put forward is one of which all hon. Members are aware and have great sympathy with.

      967
      The difficulty is how to deal with the problem.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision. I understand that it was in the original Protection of the Environment Bill. Water from mine workings—this is the difficulty—has always presented a special problem. For that reason such provisions have been put in the Bill.
      First, all discharges from working mines are brought under control and will need the consent of the water authority. Secondly, Clause 46—not Clause 45—provides powers for water authorities to carry out the studies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      The difficulty with abandoned mines is how to prevent water pollution at all. Whereas water pumped from a working mine may be relatively clean, once a mine has been abandoned the water can become stagnant and carry polluting substances of one kind or another into streams or underground water.
      One method of preventing this pollution is to continue pumping. That is an expensive remedy, and to some extent the Government must be the guardian of the prevention of too much expense just as much as any ordinary housekeeper. That is a matter to which we cannot close our minds. Water from abandoned mines might be treated in some other way—I do not know—but that could also be expensive.
      The point about the studies under Clause 46 is that they will examine the extent of the problem and, I hope, provide us with a more suitable, but less expensive, solution than those presented to us at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman is patient and accepts that we, too, have a genuine desire to deal with this problem as efficiently, quickly and economically as possible, he might understand that his amendment may be a shade premature. That is the only difference between us.
      Mr. Onslow: I am prepared to be patient, but, by the same token, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to be patient. If he will wait until the studies under Clause 46 have been completed, it may then be right to put the provision in the legislation. It is he who is being premature, not I.
      Mr. Silkin: Let us at least agree that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and the Secretary of State will be impatient to get a solution to the problem. To that extent I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reasonably satisfied.
      The amendment would make criminal a person who perhaps had never owned the mine in the first place. The mine might have been sold. The previous owner might have gone into liquidation—a suitable use of the word in this connection! The mine might have had a totally different use. It might, for example, be used in agriculture. It is a little hard that the person who acquires it without knowing any of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should be penalised. This, too, needs careful study and weighing up.
      The good will and the intention are here to see that the scheme works and to see that pollution is prevented to the best of our powers. At the moment, I do not think that the amendment is the right answer, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman may see his way to withdrawing it.
      Mr. Onslow: I am aware of the pitfalls that await back benchers who attempt to amend legislation. They never get the wording right, and cannot be expected to. I realise that the amendment would have side consequences for which I have not provided in a linked series of amendments.
      Will the Secretary of State at least meet me on this? Will he indicate as strongly as he can from his important position to the National Coal Board and to any other major operator of an important waterway that he expects them to set themselves a standard of public conscience which may not be embodied in statute? That would prevent a great deal of good work being undone because of the way the legislation reads. On the basis that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to write to the National Coal Board and other major operators to say that there is a gap and that he will be greatly obliged for their assistance in carrying out obligations which the law may not directly require but which the public would expect them to undertake, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. John Silkin: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I will see that the attention of those concerned is drawn to the debate and to the important point which he has made.
      Mr. Onslow: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 32

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 30 AND 31
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 48, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
      The amendment is concerned with a contradiction in Clause 32 which deals with consents for discharges of trade and sewage effluent referred to under Clause 30. It provides for the publication in the prescribed form of notice of the application or instrument. But, according to subsection (4), a water authority shall be entitled to disregard in certain circumstances the necessity for publication.
      I think that the policy that publicity shall be given for effluent discharge, and so on, is correct throughout the Bill. But surely there is a contradiction here. I believe that publicity should be given in all cases. That is a submission which is made by the National Anglers Council.
      Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is an exceptional procedure, but it is designed to deal only with very small and exceptional matters, where the water authority is absolutely satisfied that it should exercise its judgment in respect of these discharges.
      The amendment seeks to take away from the water authorities the exercise of that judgment. As the provision is principally intended to deal with hundreds of small and very insignificant discharges made from such places as domestic septic tanks, we do not think that it would be appropriate to have the whole panoply of the Bill brought into play when the water authority is absolutely satisfied
      970
      as to the effect of any individual discharge.
      As I have said, the discharges are usually so insignificant that it would be a waste of money and time if it was necessary to go through the whole procedure of advertising in the London Gazette and local newspapers if the discharge were to have no appreciable effect. It will be the daily task of water authorities to decide what effect effluents of various kinds are likely to have on the various rivers in their areas. There is no better agency for taking on this task. The consents that they give in small, individual cases will be recorded on public registers. If an authority has misjudged a question—this is what would then cause concern—the Bill contains all the machinery which would be necessary for revoking or varying the order which may be involved.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied, therefore, that this matter can be left to the water authorities to deal with administratively.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: It is a little hard expecting, in small cases such as these, the people who will be affected to a greater or lesser degree to have to inspect the register. I should have thought that it would be much simpler, as is done widely under the town and country planning procedures, for notification to be put in the local newspaper—which is what is referred to here—and not the London Gazette.
      I appreciate, however, that this matter has been given consideration by the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 48, line 43, leave out subsection (5).
      Having referred to what the Minister called "small" and "exceptional", we now turn to the other exception, which is the applications for large, significant effluent discharges—those important enough to go to the Secretary of State. What is proposed in the Bill is that the same provisions of non-appearance in local newspapers and so on shall apply. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman will get over the advocacy for "small" and "exceptional", as he said, and now the type of application, which of necessity,

      971
      because of its significance, goes to the Secretary of State.
      One perhaps begins to feel that there is a cover-up possibility here, and that these applications should surely have wide publicity. Although I agreed to accept the hon. Gentleman's previous assurance, I shall listen to the next assurance with even greater interest.
      Mr. Tony Newton: I wish to ask the Minister about the scope of the authority's powers—
      It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Control of Pollution Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Newton: I should like to know a little more about the powers of the water authorities on which we are now being asked to agree special procedures. The Minister knows from a Question of mine that he has answered and a brief word we had beforehand, that there was a horrible accident in my constituency recently, in which a small boy was drowned in the sludge pit at a privately operated sewage plant. Although it would be improper to comment at length before the inquest, it is obvious that the safety precautions were not all we would have liked. It appears from the Minister's answer this week that there is no statutory powers governing safety precautions at plants of this kind, as opposed to the nature of the effluent and the pollution, which has also been a problem at this plant.
      Under Clause 30 the water authorities can make specific requirements about certain matters before granting consent, but they also have a general power:
      "The conditions subject to which a water authority may give its consent in pursuance of this section shall be such reasonable conditions as the authority thinks fit".
      Would that allow authorities to impose conditions as to safety precautions at plants like this for the protection of the public? I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that it will and that he will do what he can to see that the authorities use these powers and inspect such
      972
      plants. If there is not, and would not be after the Bill is passed, power to deal with safety, the law would be unsatisfactory and I should want to press him further in other ways.
      Mr. Denis Howell: The amendment would leave out the provision which requires that the arrangements set out in the clause for the advertising of applications for consent to discharge should also apply, with prescribed modifications, to applications called in by the Secretary of State under Clause 31. Our intention is that the procedure for advertising applications and receiving representations should be the same in principle for called-in applications as for others. I am sure that that would meet with agreement.
      It is certainly not intended to exclude publication in local newspapers. There is nothing sinister about the phrase "subject to prescribed modifications". That is a drafting convenience which enables the necessary adaptations to be made to the procedure in the different circumstances in which the Secretary of State decides to call in an application. I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) will be happy that we are ensuring that the same procedure applies in both cases.
      The whole House will sympathise with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) over the tragic accident which occurred in his constituency, apparently in a privately owned sewage works where, I understand, the boundary fencing was inadequately or improperly maintained. I can tell him that a code of safety exists. It is entitled "Safety in sewers and large sewage works." It gives comprehensive advice about the design and operation of works, including the need to erect and maintain fences and warning notices to prevent access by the public, especially children. We hope that all who are responsible for sewage works will make certain—they have an obligation so to do—that the code is practised.
      There is a power under Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936 whereby water authorities can, on request, adopt private sewage works. If there is any question of people being unable properly to maintain the safety of their works, the water authorities can take them over.
      I am advised that this power is not there to encourage privately owned works

      973
      to be allowed to decay so that they may then be taken over. I do not suppose there is a great deal of profitability in this operation but we do not want people to rely on this power, allow works to decay and then go to water authorities saying "This has happened. Will you take us over?" Owners of these private works have a social responsibility properly to maintain and fence their works.
      One of the reasons why we opposed this Bill originally was that it left out the privately-owned water companies. Obviously at some stage we shall wish to return to them. As I have told the House, the administrative arrangements for this Bill were so rushed, although undertaken with such skill by the new water authorities in a short period of time, that we do not propose to approach that problem for at least a year or so. We have told the water authorities that we propose to let them have two years to settle down and get the new scheme working before there is a major review.
      I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that when we come to conduct this review of the working of the Act I will specifically look into the question of privately-owned sewage companies and make sure that I keep him informed of the position.
      Mr. Newton: I accept what the Minister says. The instance I mentioned involved not a private water company but a developer. Because the sewerage system for the area was inadequate he had to put a system in before he could build the houses. This is an inherently unsatisfactory situation. He does not want to operate it. It ought to be operated by a public body. I understand that the Anglian Water Authority is considering taking it over, and I am pressing it hard to do so. I understand the Minister's concentration on this question of the operation of private sewage plants. Although this code exists, there appears to be no power for anyone to make sure that it is observed in plants which have not been taken over. Can the power under Clause 30 of the Bill dealing with the general powers of water authorities to rive consents be used to impose safety precautions, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman encourage water authorities so to use that power?
      Mr. Howell: I can answer that point but not, I think, to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman or myself. Powers of control are directed at the quality of the effluent. Powers of control over private sewage works do not extend to the safety of the premises from which the discharge is made. The effect of that, therefore, is that water authorities cannot deal with the safety of private sewage works, but I shall certainly ensure that the matter is taken up in the general review. I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing our attention to it and for giving us the opportunity to remind owners of private sewage works of then responsibilities and of the need rigorously to apply the code.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 34

      RESTRICTION ON VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF CONSENT AND OF PREVIOUS VARIATION
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 51, line 14, at end insert:
      'or
      (c) that it is necessary to protect the flora and fauna as provided in section 42 of this Act'.
      It covers a small point. The Bill says that proper protection of persons should be ensured, and the amendment would provide that that protection should be extended to cover flora and fauna as provided in Clause 42. I should be glad to hear whether the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to it.
      Mr. Denis Howell: If we thought it necessary to do what the hon. Member is asking we would most certainly do it, but I am advised that it is unnecessary. A water authority does not simply have the power to revoke damage to flora and fauna. It has a positive duty to put it right.
      Mr. Jones: In view of what the Minister says, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 42

      OPERATIONS BY WATER AUTHORITIES TO REMEDY OR FORESTALL POLLUTION OF WATER.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 61, line 14, after 'that', insert:
      'In consequence of a change in circumstances'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:
      No. 39, in page 61, line 14, at end insert 'substantially';
      No. 41, in page 61, line 20, after 'date', insert:
      'and the change in circumstances has occurred since that date and could have been foreseen on that date'.
      Government Amendments No. 79 and 80.
      Mr. Ross: I do not intend to be here too late tonight so I shall be extremely brief. The amendments try to provide compensation for people who are accused of polluting when in fact they have a legal right to discharge.
      Clause 41 already gives water authorities considerable power to control discharges of trade or sewage effluents injurious to the flora or fauna of a stream. It deals with pollution arising from a discharge made with the consent of the water authority and in accordance with the conditions contained in that consent. That is a legal discharge. Pollution arising from the entry into the stream of noxious poisonous or polluting matter is an illegal discharge.
      The amendments deal only with legal discharges. If pollution arises from a legal discharge the water authority responsible for issuing the consent has made an error of judgment and as the competent authority it surely should accept responsibility for the pollution and for consequential damage. Therefore, the amendments would afford industry and others some modicum of a safeguard for legal discharges by restricting the number of occasions when the water authority may take action under Clause 42 where a change of circumstances has taken place.
      In Committee I argued more widely on this point and the argument was not
      976
      acceptable to the Minister, but now he has come forward with Amendments No. 79 and 80 which go some way to meeting my point and which, although not entirely satisfactory, are probably about as good as I am likely to get. It might, therefore, save the time of the House if I withdrew my amendments on the understanding that the Minister proposes to move his.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has inadvertently added to my problems. I understood that he was rising to move his amendment. He could not speak unless there was a motion before the House. If I put the Question the Minister could then speak to his amendment and the hon. Member could withdraw his subsequently.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Denis Howell: As you instruct me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not speak to the amendment, but shall move my own in due course.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his amendment?
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I trust that the Minister will in due course move his amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To save the time of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 61, line 16, after 'caused', insert—
      '(other than by the intermittent appearance of sewage fungus)'
      We discussed the subject of the amendment at some length in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat the arguments. We are saying that the pollution that is injurious to the fauna or flora of a stream to which the water authority must have regard must not include the intermittent appearance of sewage fungus. Although a great deal of experimentation has been going on into the sources of that nuisance and into possible ways of dealing with it, no solution has yet been found, despite the expenditure of a great deal of money. The Minister said in Committee hat he would consider the matter sympathetically. We hope that he will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I have re-examined the matter since our brief discussion in

      977
      Committee but I cannot find a satisfactory method of dealing with this troublesome problem.
      Sewage fungus is a growth that can occur in water containing sewage effluent. Sometimes its appearance seems to be caused by the presence of other industrial effluents, but the cause of the fungus is obscure and our knowledge about it and its treatment is even more obscure. Therefore we must be very careful in the restrictions we place upon people when we are dealing with a phenomenon about which we have limited knowledge.
      The amendment proposes that where a new consent or significant variation of an existing consent leads to the appearance of sewage fungus which causes injurious pollution, the water authority should not be under the duty otherwise provided to act to prevent further occurrences. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that that cannot be right.
      Industry has expressed anxiety about the wording of the clause. It feels that it would act harshly on industrial discharges and create uncertainty in their planning. The clause, however, makes allowance for the fact that a discharger will probably not be able to change or stop a discharge immediately, and allows for a period within which the necessary changes can be made. Moreover, any restoration of the stream is to be restoration as far as is "reasonably practicable", which is the approach we both adopted.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment, although I have a great deal of sympathy with what he seeks to achieve.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 62, line 21, leave out from 'in' to 'nothing' in line 23 and insert
      'subsections (1) and (2) of section 34 of this Act; but—
      (a) where in the performance of that duty a notice is served in consequence of which compensation would have been pay. able in pursuance of subsection (4) of that section if the notice had been served by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, compensation shall be so payable as if the notice had been so served; and
      (b),—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 62 leave out lines 45 to 48.
      Why is a water authority, under a clause which deals with operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water, prevented from impeding or preventing the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent? There seems to be almost a contradiction in the wording. The operations are directed to the remedy and forestalling of pollution, and yet the authority is prevented from impeding or preventing the making of a discharge—in other words, sealing up an effluent flow. How does that come about?
      Mr. Denis Howell: I do not know whether I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman but I shall do my best. If I cannot satisfy him now I shall write to him. What he is seeking to do is to delete the proviso in Clause 42(4) that a water authority may not use its powers under the subsection, which enables it to carry out operations to forestall and remedy pollution, to prevent the making of a discharge which has the consent of the authority.
      The reason for the proviso is that a procedure already exists in Clauses 33 and 34 for revoking or varying a consent which in certain circumstances renders the authority liable to pay compensation to the discharger, and also gives him rights of appeal. It would be wrong for the authority—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—to be able to bypass that procedure and to prevent the discharge from being made by the operatives under Clause 42(4). That is not to say that the authority feels that the discharge, if it continues, will cause pollution if it is not able to act quickly to forestall it.
      The earlier provisions of Clause 42, as we have seen, put a duty on the authority to vary or revoke the consent if the damage to the flora or fauna has occurred. If the damage is not so serious but still justifies revocation or variation of the consent to provide proper protection for persons, such as riparian owners, likely to be affected by the discharge, the authority may act under Clause 34(3) to revoke or vary consent and then use its power under Clause 42(4) to forestall or to remedy the pollution. Revocation or variation of the consent is achieved by notice under Clause 33(1). It may be immediate and take effect pending any

      979
      appeal, so there is no need or reason for delay where speed happens to be essential.
      I admit that that explanation is technical. It involves more than one clause, and the action of one clause on another. I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had time to study what I have said he will see the reason for the Government's not accepting the proposal he has put forward.
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I compliment the Minister on the way that he has read his brief and the person responsible for its drafting.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 80, in page 63, line 20, at end insert:
      '; or (c) if he is a person to whom compensation is payable by virtue of subsection (3) of this section in respect of a consent to which the operations in question relate.'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 44

      POWER OF WATER AUTHORITIES TO EXCLUDE UNREGISTERED VESSELS FROM RIVERS, ETC.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 64, line 25, at end insert:
      '(3) Registration of a vessel by any water authority in accordance with byelaws made by that authority under subsection (1) of this section, or (pursuant to any other enactment) by any other body which may be prescribed, shall be deemed to consitutc registration also of that vessel by any (or, as the case may be, by any other) water authority in accordance with any such byelaws which are so made by that authority'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 43, in page 64, line 25, at end insert:
      '(3) Byelaws made by a water authority under subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any stream in relation to which functions are exercisable by a navigation authority.
      In this subsection "navigation authority" means a person or body of persons (whether corporate or incorporate but not being a water authority) having a duty or power imposed or conferred by or under an enactment to manage or maintain a canal whether navigable or not, or to manage or maintain an inland navigation other than a canal, whether natural or artificial and whether tidal or not'.
      Mr. Rossi: This is a matter that we discussed in Committee by way of a
      980
      discussion on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Amendments have been tabled at the request of the British Waterways Board. It is concerned about the power being given to the water authorities to make byelaws concerning vessels on streams and rivers. The British Waterways Board is responsible for about 2,000 miles of inland waterways in England, Scotland and Wales under the British Waterways Act 1971. It considers that the introduction of a registration system by water authorities for vessels on the board's waterways is likely to cause chaos and confusion for those using the system.
      In conjunction with the board's bye-laws, the board is able to control the navigational use of its waterways. The board says that it is not prohibiting boats coming on to its river navigations as it has always been conscious that ancient common law rights of navigation may exist on such rivers. As the board has statutory duties to maintain all navigable waterways, it cannot countenance any system which may lead to the prohibition of the use of such waterways.
      This is a difficult matter in that it seems to suggest that a conflict may exist between two separate authorities, and, within the conflict, there is the question of licensing fees upon which the board relies very heavily for maintaining the operations under its control.
      I understand that since Committee discussions have been taking place between the British Waterways Board and the Minister to try to resolve the problem, and that, although suggestions have been made, the board is not completely happy with the way in which matters have progressed. It is still conscious of the conflict and of the possibility of loss of revenue.
      The amendments are proposed so that we may hear from the Minister whether he has any solution to suggest other than the one which the Department has suggested.
      Mr. Denis Howell: These amendments are alternatives.
      As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, I have been in touch with the British Waterways Board. I am anxious to formulate a common registration scheme. It is much more important to approach this matter from the point of

      981
      view of the rights of boat owners rather than from the point of view of statutory authorities, important though those authorities are. That is the difficulty.
      Amendment No. 25 would exclude streams on which the functions are exercisable by the navigation authority other than a water authority. That is totally unacceptable because such streams are subject to control of pollution by water authorities. The registration provisions are a further weapon in the armoury of control and should not be excluded.
      Amendment No. 43 looks superficially more attractive. It would prevent a water authority from requiring separate registration of a boat already registered with another water authority or another prescribed authority.
      I have met the representatives of the British Waterways Board since the Committee stage. The board is the largest navigation authority in the country and it has a great deal of experience in the commercial use of waterways and in pioneering their use for recreation. I agree that registration fees constitute an important part of the board's income, and it is not my purpose to undermine its income in that respect.
      The amendment would make it possible to ensure that no BWB-registered boat had to be registered by a water authority. It would protect the board's interests, but we also have the duty to protect boat owners' interests.
      I cannot recommend the House to accept either amendment, thereby pre- empting the discussions which are taking place. My concern is to have one registration scheme. I want to prevent boat owners from having to go through the bureaucracy of registering their boats twice if they go on waters controlled by two separate public authorities. I am sure that I carry hon. Members with me in saying that. However, I wish to safe- guard the British Waterways Board's income. I shall continue to discuss with the board, and will implement as soon as possible, the necessary administrative way of achieving those two desirable objectives.
      I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Hornsey, as I think I have satisfied the British Waterways Board, that I have the interests of the board at heart. I shall meet those interests as far
      982
      as I can, but I must also look after the interests of the boat owners.
      Mr. Rossi: On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 48

      CHARGES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN DIS CHARGES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Skeet: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 66, line 44, leave out from first word 'A' to 'as' on page 67, line 1.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 45, in page 67, line 2, leave out from 'authorities' to end of line 11.
      Mr. Skeet: What I have in mind is the charges which may be levied for the discharge of trade effluent into drains. There is already considerable law appertaining to this matter, including the Public Health Act 1961 and the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937. Since all the necessary powers are available in Sections 59 and 60 of the Public Health Act 1961 it seems unfortunate that modifications should be made now. There is also good reason for retaining Section 30(4) of the Water Act 1973, which this clause seeks to abandon.
      Again the problems in Scotland, England and Wales are dealt with differently in Clauses 48 and 49, and there ought to be some alignment of those provisions. The matter in Scotland is treated more advantageously than in England, which is the purpose of Clause 48. Surely there should be some harmonisation in these provisions.
      In Section 59 of the Public Health Act 1961 there is provision for
      "payment by the occupier of the trade premises to the local authority of charges for the reception of the trade effluent into the sewer, and for the disposal thereof …"
      Therefore, there is recommendation for charging. The provision continues that regard shall be had
      "to the nature and composition and to the volume and rate of discharge of the trade effluent so discharged, to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred by a sewerage authority in connection with the reception

      983
      or disposal of the trade effluent, and to any revenue likely to be derived by a sewerage authority from the trade effluent."
      Apparently, the Bill is to eliminate this provision. Therefore, if any additional revenue conies in, is it to be ignored?
      Section 59 deals with additional expense and ties it down to the actual work involved, but now charges are to be allowed to be made over and above the cost incurred. In the circumstances, it would be wiser to maintain the provisions of the Public Health Act 1961.
      The same argument applies to the Water Act 1973. Section 30(4) states:
      "In fixing charges or services … a water authority shall have regard to the cost of performing those services …"
      There will be no complaint if a water authority charges what it has had to defray, but to suggest that it should have powers to impose additional levies is going beyond what is a reasonable charge. Indeed, it would be to impose a tax.
      We are all aware that these water authorities have grown into big multipurpose organisations seeking to bring in a large amount of revenue. In Bedfordshire it is indicated that if the water authority were only looking out for the actual costs incurred the revenue would be small, but that it is building up its stocks of capital.
      I hope that the Minister will assure us that the modifications contained in the Bill will not enable water authorities to top up their revenues by a considerable figure, and that they will be told that they may charge for the amount of work to be done at reasonable cost but that they should not go further and, if they get into difficulties, impose a considerable levy on industry in order to top up their revenues.
      If the Minister is prepared to give me some assurances on this point and to say, as was said in another place, that he will be reluctant to use these powers, then I shall be most grateful to him. If he does not intend to use the powers, why take them? He said that he would see whether any modification of the water charging powers might be required. Therefore, perhaps the matter should be deferred till those modifications are introduced.
      I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I believe that this important matter
      984
      was not raised in Committee. Therefore, it should be carefully examined.
      Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) suggested that adequate powers already existed. That is not so. Clause 48 deals with two kinds of charge. It enables the Secretary of State to make orders in respect of the discharge of trade effluent discharged into sewers or authorised discharges to rivers, estuaries and so on. The change in charging for discharges to sewers is necessary because under the existing law charges can only be revised at intervals of not less than two years. At a time of rising costs, this favours industry at the expense of the householder, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would wish that to happen. There has been no suggestion that industry has been opposed to this matter, and we wish to act for the protection of the householder.
      On the other part of the amendment, there is no power in existing legislation to charge for discharges direct to rivers, Until the current studies have been completed, the Government will not know what charging principles are necessary.
      Mr. Skeet: Rivers are controlled by the legislation on river control and pollution enacted in 1951 and 1961. Therefore, that point must be covered.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I do not think that intervention is germane to the point I am making. I am dealing with the current studies which we are undertaking into how far it is possible or right to make these charges.
      The practical point is that if it is eventually decided that the charges would make a substantial contribution to the improvement of rivers and estuaries, while securing optimum use, the Government would not want to wait till time could be found for new and additional legislation. There is no suggestion that there will be no opportunity for the House to discuss these matters. That is why we shall proceed by order if the Bill is carried into law. We shall have full consultation in advance of any order, and dischargers will have the further protection of affirmative resolution procedure. I hope the House will be satisfied that, although we are seeking to avoid the need for further legislation, we are also seeking to protect the rights of

      985
      industry and the House will have the advantage of the affirmative resolution procedure.
      Clause 48 deals with the situation in England. Clause 49 deals with Scotland. Scotland does not have the comprehensive charging powers which are contained in the Water Act 1973.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances.
      Mr. Skeet: I am obliged to the Minister, for he has partly satisfied me on some of my points. There will be reviews, and we know that these must take account of rises in costs. What appals me is that built into the legislation there is a heavy rate of inflation.
      In view of what the Minister said, and bearing in mind that excessive use is not to be made of this provision and that there is a right of appeal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 67, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'appeals' in line 14 and insert:
      '(a) shall include provision for'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment the House can consider Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
      Mr. Howell: We are seeking to meet A point raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in Committee.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Minister for honouring the undertaking he gave in Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 67, line 17. at beginning insert 'may include provision'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 49

      CHARGES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN DISCHARGES IN SCOTLAND
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 68, line 11, leave out from 'section' to 'appeals' in line 12 and insert:
      '(a) shall include provision for'.
      No. 49, in page 68, line 15, at beginning insert 'may include provision'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 52

      INTERPRETATION ETC. OF PART II
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 69, line 47, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 51, in page 69, line 49, leave out from 'waters' to end of subsection.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 56
      CONTROL OF NOISE ON CONSTRUCTION SITES
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 73, line 36, after 'demolition', insert 'or dredging'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
    Clause 56

      CONTROL OF NOISE ON CONSTRUCTION SITES
      Amendment made: No. 53, in page 74, line 17, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
      '(c) before specifying any particular methods or plant or machinery, to the desirability in the interests of any recipients of the notice in question of specifying other methods or plant or machinery which would be substantially as effective in minimising noise and more acceptable to them;'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 58

      NOISE IN STREETS
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 76, line 30, after ' purposes' insert:
      'by a water authority in the exercise of any of its functions'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient for the House to consider the following amendments.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 77, line 12, leave out 'noon' and insert 'four'.
      Amendment No. 56, in page 77, line 21, Clause 58, at end insert:
      '(3A) Subject to the provisions of the following subsection no vehicle shall be used in a street in such a manner as to cause a noise in excess of such level as the local

      987
      authority for the area in which the street is situated may from time to time prescribe (and different noise levels may be prescribed for different vehicles or classes of vehcle; and any person who uses or permits the use of a vehicle in contravention of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act.
      In this subsection 'street' has the same meaning as in subsection (1) of this section.
      (3B) The preceding subsection shall not apply to the use of a vehicle—

      (a) for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or by a local authority within its area;

      (b) by the armed services in time of war or on such other occasions as the Secretary of State may prescribe;

      (c) for purposes of motor racing on such occasions as the local authority may, in writing, permit; or

      (d) in case of emergency.'

      Mr. Jones: This amendment relates to a minor matter of the use of broadcasting equipment and the limitations involved. The Bill refers to use of broadcasting equipment for police, fire brigade, ambulance and local authority purposes. It would be perfectly reasonable for a water authority to be added to the list. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to have an evacuation. We feel that this proposal is not likely to be opposed.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: With regard to Amendment No. 56, the Bill seeks to take action to control pollution and noise in particular. But it does absolutely nothing about traffic noise. It leaves a huge area uncovered. The Minister said to me earlier today that he thought I was opposed to the concept of noise abatement zones but, on the contrary, I welcome their concept. However, it is not sufficient for us to go away from here patting ourselves on the back that we have created a new form of noise control which will make certain areas of towns and cities more bearable to live in, when we will have done so little that many people will not be aware, once the Bill is passed, that they are living in noise abatement zones.
      I have already referred to the question of trying to impose a single noise standard which could be reduced progressively. I am now concerned with traffic noise within noise abatement zones. I entirely accept that in at least one of its reports, that dealing with neighbourhood noise, the Noise Advisory Council
      988
      considered that traffic noise was outside its terms of reference, but the Association of Public Health inspectors, in a memorandum on noise control areas, did not. The views of the Association are worthy of consideration.
      In 1969 new traffic noise levels came into effect. Their levels were to be imposed by a noise meter and there were carefully specified dimensions laid out as to where, at the side of the road, the meter should be positioned. Yet the Minister will know, as I know, that, although there are more than 50 counties in England and Wales, there are only 26 metres spread throughout those counties simply because we cannot enforce that part of the regulations.
      4.45 p.m.
      The Minister may say that my amendment is slightly out of order. But traffic noise is not being progressively reduced as we like to persuade ourselves that it is. Therefore, if we are serious about noise abatement zones, we must accept that the amendment goes a long way to meeting this point.
      The Association of Public Health Inspectors proposed that in some areas it would be possible to place restrictions on traffic. I support that suggestion.
      The association envisages that heavy lorries should be banned from using particular roads through those zones. I support that proposal, too. Indeed, I suggest that local authorities should be allowed to impose noise levels within noise abatement zones covering the use of road traffic.
      Let us take an arbitrary figure from the motor regulations—85 decibels. That would mean that "at a stroke", to use a phrase that has already been used in debate, a mass of commercial vehicles, not just heavy lorries, would be precluded from roads within noise abatement zones. It would also almost certainly guarantee that a large number of motor bikes could not be driven through those zones at whatever hours the local authority specified.
      It is a fact, which we cannot escape, that the single most objectionable, insidious and penetrating noise within our towns and cities is that of road traffic. If the Minister is serious—and I believe he is—about controlling pollution, particularly noise pollution, he must make

      989
      noise abatement zones something more than attractive titles on paper. Therefore, I ask him to consider allowing local authorities to impose restrictions on traffic according to a noise level. I assure him that if he is able to indicate that something along those lines will be included in his future plans it will be a badly needed jolt to all those who persuade themselves that traffic noise is diminishing. The regulations about traffic noise cannot be enforced because we cannot enforce the setting up of noise metres, and without them it is impossible to impose noise levels.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I want to shock and astonish the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) by accepting Amendment No. 54. We think that it is in every way eminently suitable. I hope, therefore, that he will not wish to add any other comments on it.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that Amendment No. 56 is unworkable on the sensible ground that vehicles travel about. The hon. Gentleman is asking that local authorities should have powers to make orders about noise levels for vehicles. It is clear that if they did that we could have local authorities making different orders and that vehicles, as they went from one local authority area to another, might be stopped and dealt with rather differently. That would be a totally unsatisfactory situation.
      The problem of vehicle noise is well recognised, but it has to be tackled on a national rather than local basis. There are already national noise standards for vehicles, and those standards can be progressively reduced by use of the existing powers.
      In practical terms, it is difficult to contemplate a lorry which met the appropriate national standards being stopped at various points on its journey. Vehicles are specifically designed to move about the country. We have to approach this matter by means of research and by talking to manufacturers. We must have a practical and pragmatic outlook.
      Local authorities already have power to limit or ban the use of vehicles of various classes on specified streets or in specified zones. It may be that they should be encouraged to use those powers more
      990
      widely. The judicious use of those powers would probably have a greater immediate impact on noise levels than could be achieved by any other method, without giving rise to the problems which would flow from acceptance of the amendment. I am not able to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendment, but I understand why. Let the Minister be under no illusion that noise levels in country areas are being controlled. If he came to Derbyshire at any time he would hear the noise of lorries going through the villages and towns. The police do not seem to apply the existing regulations for keeping down the noise level, save in exceptional circumstances. Day after day people are gravely disturbed by the noise of heavy vehicles going past their houses.
      I accept that the amendment was not so well drafted as it might have been, but the Minister should be in no doubt that noise is a grave problem in many areas, particularly in small villages on trunk roads and in small towns where there is great congestion. The noise is intolerable, apart from the fumes of badly adjusted diesel engines.
      Should an election be held in the near future, I assume that Clause 58 will not prevent candidates from using loudspeakers—or will it?
      Mr. Denis Howell: The noise from loudspeakers is covered by Amendment No. 55 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who is not able to be with us. I should have objected to the excessive restriction of Amendment No. 55 on the ground that it would have stopped us all buying lollies during lunch-time, because the clause covers the mechanical noises emitted by icecream vans.
      I have thought about the use of loudspeakers for political purposes. I have been subjected to excessive noise late at night by my political opponents who are not represented in the Chamber at present. It depends on the time of year when the election is held. Parents who put their children to bed early do not want to hear loudspeakers used by political candidates. When the Liberal Party uses loudspeakers in Birmingham in this way, it is counter-productive. We do not seek

      991
      to restrict the use of loudspeakers by political parties, but we do not wish them to be used at improper hours.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 64

      NOISE FROM PLANT OR MACHINERY
      Amendments made: No. 57, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'in making' and insert', before he makes'.
      No. 58, in page 82, line 11, leave out 'ensure' and insert:
      'consult persons appearing to him to represent producers and users of plant and machinery with a view to ensuring'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 69

      INTERPRETATION AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 85, line 43 leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 1 on page 86 and insert:
      'structural alteration, maintenance or repair of any railway line or siding or'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, Amendment No. 60, in page 86, line 3, at end insert:
      '(1A) The area of a local authority which includes part of the seashore shall also include for the purposes of this Part of this Act, except sections 58 to 63, the territorial sea lying seawards from that part of the shore; and

      (a) any question as to whether a place is within the area of a local authority by virtue of this subsection shall be determined by the Secretary of State; and

      (b) this Part of this Act (except sections 58 to 63 and this subsection) shall have effect, in relation to any area included in the area of a local authority by virtue of this subsection—'.

      This is to ensure that we control noise from vessels.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 75

      RESEARCH AND PUBLICITY
      Mr. Spriggs: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 89, line 54, at end insert:
      992
      "-'and in any one instance shall do so if requested by at least sixty persons listed in a current Electoral Register in the area of or adjacent to the relevant emission' ".
      I have read the clause very carefully, I have a constituency interest in this matter in that my constituents have suffered as a result of emissions from chemical works in St. Helens on a number of occasions. When reading the clause I took exception to its permissive character, especially that of subsection (2). My amendment would insert the words
      "and in any one instance shall do so if requested by at least sixty persons listed in a current Electorial Register in the area of or adjacent to the relevant emission."
      One has only to look at subsections (3) and (4) to find the word "shall" instead of "may", and that we are telling the local authority the powers that it shall not have. However, in subsection (2) we have the word "may".
      We are trying to persuade the Minister to give local authorities mandatory powers instead of permissive powers. Many hon. Members from the industrial conurbations of the North and the North-West know only too well, to their regret and sorrow, the suffering of their constituents. Many of our constituents, although never having worked in industry themselves, suffer from severe bronchitis. We must take note of that.
      I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister this morning in which he referred to the matter about which I am talking. Concerning my constituency, he tells me that this is principally a local matter and will have to remain a local matter. But I am afraid that it will not have to remain a local matter. It will not remain local when literally hundreds of people block the entrance to chemical works, and when men, women and children lie down in the road to demonstrate their opposition to tanker traffic passing through the narrow streets of an industrial town and carrying one of the most dangerous chemicals produced in this country. That is why we ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
      I believe that without upsetting a lot of people and many industrial firms, the Minister can alter these permissive powers. When the human element enters into an industrial atmosphere of this kind, we have learned to our cost the mistakes that have been made when a human factor is not taken into account. The

      993
      clause refers to research and the gathering of information about chemical emissions. We already have alkali inspectors whose duty it is to visit these plants several times a year. I was in touch with the Department under the previous Administration and I have met the Alkali Inspectorate.
      5.0 p.m.
      Before this firm was allowed planning permission, an alkali inspector and someone from the technology section of the Department attended two meetings in St. Helens. I will see that the Minister receives copies of the minutes listing the names of those attending.
      My constituents in the Sutton district of St. Helens have suffered from several emissions from the chemical plant on their doorsteps. Let me issue a warning. Demonstrations have proved that people are not prepared to put up with anything that someone above decides is good enough for them. Poor people are entitled to a fair share of the quality of life and to parliamentary protection if firms refuse to act responsibly. Without hesitation, I blame the firm concerned. Unless the law protects my constituents and others in similar situations, my constituents are determined to take the law into their own hands. They see no other way to protect themselves and their children.
      The present system of monitoring emissions is nothing short of ridiculous and leaves my constituents and me very angry. In view of the types of gases and liquids which are allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere, all those interested should have this information whenever they require it. I certainly object to any part of the clause saying what local authorities shall not do. I would rather that the word "may" be substituted for "shall" in that place, so that local authorities wherever these plants operate dangerously shall have powers parallel to those of the Alkali Inspectorate to enter premises regardless of whether the owners will accept them. We should give them mandatory powers to enter those premises. Reasonable notice should be given to everyone before entry is made. It is wrong, I stress this as strongly as I can, that we should deny this. It is imperative to give local authorities parallel powers so that they may work, not in
      994
      competition with the Alkali Inspectorate, but in co-operation with it.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). There is an area of West Ham known as Manor Road which for many years has not had the best kind of housing. The council is now spending a considerable sum of money on refurbishing the area. Alas, the air there smells constantly of sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, as some hon. Members who went to school there will remember. This smell has been in the area every time that I have visited it.
      I do not say that these emissions are dangerous. The problem is being examined and I am glad that my hon. Friend is corresponding with the Alkali Inspectorate about it. Unfortunately, a great deal of public confidence in the Inspectorate and in the Department of the Environment has been lost because these emissions continue. One can detect them in one's nostrils continuously. There have been difficulties in the past as a result of the operations of the plant responsible for the smell.
      My hon. Friend spoke of a lack of confidence in the Inspectorate. I do not know whether it is well-founded but I am prepared to believe that these gentlemen are doing a good job. That is not enough. They have to be seen to be doing a good job. The public must be given evidence that all is well.
      I very much welcome Clause 75 giving the discretionary power to local authorities to work parallel with the Inspectorate. I am not sure that that is enough. While many authorities will take these powers seriously, some may not. It may not be for any bad reason but simply because it is yet another thing for local authorities to do. They do not always have the resources they need. It may be a matter touching on the rate of industrial employment in the area and employment itself. My hon. Friend and I have tabled this amendment to make it obligatory for a local authority to take such steps if 60 or more persons currently on the electoral roll in the area of or adjacent to the emission ask the authority to take such steps.
      In other words, we are giving the local authority the opportunity to show that it is aware of the problem. Even if the

      995
      power is never used it may help local authorities to discharge their responsibility to the public by taking action before it is forced on them. I hope my hon. Friend will realise that this is an attempt to improve the Bill.
      Local authorities will do the work in most cases but this will give extra encouragement, not only to make sure that they do it, but to ensure that the public have confidence in the local authority and the Alkali Inspectorate. The public will know that if at any time they can get 60 persons to agree then something will have to be done.
      Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I regret that I have to support the argument of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I have no doubt about the probity of the Alkali Inspectorate in respect of its expertise, but I doubt whether it is capable of carrying out its functions to the full because it is overworked. As a result, in one part of my constituency there is a cement works which belches out noxious fumes and dust. I have received constant representations over the years about houses, cars, caravans, and particularly windows being covered in a thick coating of dust. The Alkali Inspectorate has repeatedly visited the works but the local electorate is not satisfied. I have written repeatedly to the Department about this matter. The inspectors visit the works and things improve for a short time but then we are back to the same old trouble. It is not the fault of the Inspectorate. They are overworked and as a result they cannot fulfil the aims of the original legislation.
      I hope that this new proposal will improve the situation and stop some of the emissions with all the damage, difficulty and trouble they cause. They are polluting people's hopes, and in some cases they are threatening people's health.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry that we have embarked upon a discussion of the Alkali Inspectorate which is totally outside the scope of the amendment as far as I can see. I congratulate hon. Members on their ingenuity in raising questions about the Alkali Inspectorate. It may be overworked but it possesses a tremendous amount of expertise, and I cannot advise the House to undermine that by breaking
      996
      up the inspectorate. It would be impossible for 400 local authorities individually to collect and collate the expertise of the inspectorate.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Royal Commission to look at the whole question of air pollution, including the positions of the Alkali Inspectorate and the local authorities. If people feel strongly and if they have any evidence which suggests that there should be a change or a strengthening of the procedures rather than of the allocation of responsibilities, I hope they will present their evidence to the Royal Commission.
      My hon. Friend's amendment introduces a novel concept into our law. It suggests that 60 electors, by signing a petition, could require a local authority to act. I suppose the closest we have come to that was the old town poll principle which over many years came to be regarded by the Labour Party as objectionable and as something which should be removed. As implemented it prevented local authorities from doing things which by and large more radical authorities wished to do.
      That is likely to be the long-term effect of this proposal. I am sure that that would not happen in St. Helens, but if the provision was written into the Bill it would be available to more reactionary electors or ratepayers than are found in the progressive constituency of St. Helens. I understand the concern on this point and I know that my hon. Friend has waited a long time to raise this matter. He raised it on Second Reading. Since then I have agreed to meet a deputation from his local authority and very soon we shall be able to discuss the difficulties that arise from this works.
      I hope that my hon. Friend does not expect me to spend more time on the proposal about 60 electors. The idea would be wrong in principle and would lead to considerable difficulties. Local authorities are democratically elected bodies and the pressure of local opinion makes itself felt as is shown by the situation in St. Helens which has resulted in my hon. Friend raising the matter and the local authority coming to see me. I would be loath to remove the rights of local authorities, which is what would happen under the amendment.

      997
      5.15 p.m.
      I shall now say one or two words about the particular case which has given rise to the amendments. The sulphuric acid works in question causes considerable difficulty. I am told that within 600 yards of it there are three schools, playing fields, a reservoir, a hospital and six residential areas, three of which are new. At one of them, houses are still being built.
      Whatever has been said about the Alkali Inspectorate, the inspectorate tells me that if it had been consulted by the local authority at the time it would certainly have warned the council against permitting the chemical works on that site. The inspectorate would have also drawn the council's attention to Circular 5/68 issued by the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which advised local authorities against including in planning consents conditions relating to matters dealt with in other legislation. I think that it is in that technical area that considerable difficulties have arisen.
      There have been many complaints, particularly about smarting eyes and running noses caused by sulphuric acid spray from the cooling system. But I gather that that was in 1972–73, and that since then much of that problem has been eliminated by the installation of a new cooling system at a cost of £100,000. It seems that the Alkali Inspectorate and the local authority have persuaded the company to meet the situation. I have no evidence that the company was unwilling to be persuaded; it was possibly willing to do what it could.
      Yet I still agree that the position is not satisfactory. The difficulty is that the houses and hospitals are up and the factory is up. It is open to the local planning authority which gave the planning permission, the St. Helens authority, to make an order under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, requiring the discontinuance of the works. But such an order would be subject to the company's right of objection to the Seecretary of State. If the order were confirmed it would involve substantial compensation to the company, which would be a considerable burden on the rate-payers.
      998
      I hope that I have said enough to show that it is a very complicated matter. It is of serious concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are doing what we can to deal with it. There has been one successful prosecution of the company, but the fine of £100 imposed was reduced on appeal to £25. That shows the House the further difficulties we face. The courts obviously sometimes take a different view of responsibility from that which local authorities or we in this House would take.
      The only satisfaction I can offer my hon. Friend is to say that my Department is totally accessible to him and to his local authority, as I am, to help in any way we can to try to mitigate the nuisance his constituents are suffering. I shall see that my hon. Friend is kept fully informed of what results from the deputation coming to see me.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 62 in page 90, line 30, at end insert:
      'or by exercising the powers conferred on the authority by subsection (1)(a) of this section without entering the work'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 80
      INTERPRETATION OF PART IV
      Amendment made: No. 67, in page 94, leave out lines 32 to 35.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
    Clause 86

      ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES AND INTEREST IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES OF AUTHORITIES.
      Amendments made: No. 68, in page 98, line 15 leave out 'in doing any work'.
      No. 69, line 23, leave out 'in doing any work'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 100

      INTERPRETATION ETC—GENERAL
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 108, line 33, after 'State', insert—
      ' "trade effluent" includes any liquid (either with or without particles of matter in suspension in it) which is discharged from premises used for carrying on any trade or industry,

      999
      other than surface water and domestic sewage, and for the purposes of this definition any premises wholly or mainly used (whether for profit or not) for agricultural or horticulural purposes or for scientific research or experiment shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade;'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 103

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 110, line 22, at end add:
      'or relates to trade effluent'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Clause 104

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND' EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 110, line 26, after 'and', insert '(a)'.
      No. 74, in page 110, line 30, at end insert—
      '(b) any provision appointing a day in pursuance of this subsection may be revoked or varied by an order made by the Secretary of State which comes into force before that day.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 119, line 13, at end insert—
      '5A. In section 3(1)(b) of the Public Health Act 1936 (under which an order constituting a port health authority may, among other things, assign to the authority any functions conferred on a local authority by that Act), after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Control of Pollution Act 1974".'
      No. 76, in line 14, leave out ' the Public Health Act 1936 'and insert' that Act'.
      No. 77, in page 120, line 10, at end insert:
      'and in section 12(1)(ii) of that Act (which authorises the disclosure in connection with the execution of that Act of information of which the disclosure is restricted by that section)'.
      No. 78, in line 20, at end insert—
      'The London Government Act 1963
      17A. In section 41(1)(b) of the London Government Act 1963 (which enables the functions, rights and liabilities of a local authority under any of the provisions there mentioned to be
      1000
      assigned to the port health authority for the Port of London), after the words "section 87 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "and under any provision of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" '—[Mr. Denis Howell.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown signified.]
      Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill according read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  RATE REBATES
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rate Rebate (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1974 (S.I., 1974. No. 1086), dated 25th June 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be annulled.
  As we have only 10 minutes remain-in to us, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the following motion:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Rent Rebate and Rent Allowance Schemes (England and Wales) Regulations 1974 (S.I., 1974. No. 1076), dated 24th June 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be annulled.
  I have just a few minutes in which to draw to the attention of the House what appears to be an administrative pig's ear that has been created by two Government Departments which will create a rather unfortunate anomaly in the financial position of pensioners from 22nd July onwards. This is a matter to which the attention of a number of hon. Members has been drawn by Age Concern throughout the country.
  The regulations before the House will mean that those pensioners who apply for a rent or rate rebate or allowance before 22nd July will be better off than those who apply afterwards, even though their financial means are the same. The reason for this is that pensions are to be increased on 22nd July. That is a matter which we all welcome and on which the Government should be congratulated.
  However, the Department of the Environment has not increased the needs

  1001
  allowance for rent and rate rebates. The needs allowance is used together with income as a basis for the assessment of rebates and allowances. Were it not for the regulations, many pensioners would have their rebates reduced when their pensions were increased. For that reason we have no intention of dividing against the regulations. Without them the Government would give with one hand and take back with the other.
  The regulations ensure that all pensioners applying for a rebate or allowance before 22nd July will have the increase in their income ignored. However, the regulations do not extend to pensioners who apply after 22nd July. Their new income will be taken into account and the rebate will be less. Therefore, the date upon which pensioners apply can make a considerable financial difference. It appears to be the case that a couple who apply after 22nd July could be up to £1 a week worse off than they would have been if they had applied the day before if they were eligible for both rent and rate rebates. The Minister might perhaps have time to give the exact figures and to indicate how much the difference could be because of a day or two's delay in applying. Many people are affected.
  A disappointingly low number of those who are eligible for rent and rate rebates have taken them up. Of the millions who are eligible but have not yet applied, I am sure we can agree that a high proportion are pensioners. They should come forward and apply for that to which they are entitled, otherwise they will miss out. If they do not apply before 22nd July their position will be prejudiced.
  What do the Government intend to do about this situation? I accept that they have been well-intentioned in bringing forward these regulations and that they have tried to avoid penalising those who now have the rebates. However, they must recognise that there is an anomaly. I hope we shall receive reassurance that the interests of those adversely affected will be considered.
  At some stage the Government must raise the needs allowance. Clearly it is bound to be raised again. When that happens rebates will be raised for all.
  1002
  When will the needs allowance be raised? How long will these anomalies remain? When the allowance is raised, will it be possible to consider the money that has been lost by post-22nd July applicants for rent and rate rebates who will be receiving less than their neighbours who were on the ball and who applied in time? Will the position of those people be considered and their money made up when the needs allowance is next raised? Is there no way in which the post-22nd July applicants could be assessed on all income so that their new pension increase could be disregarded?
  Age concern suggests that perhaps the level of the old pension could be recorded in the new pension books, so that there would be no administrative difficulty in assessing pensioners' old income. Is that possible?
  Finally, I touch on an important matter of principle. I ask whether Government Departments will improve liaison with each other so as to avoid creating anomalies of this sort. In our present system there are now so many benefits and allowances that very many interact upon each other. When one hand of the Government does not know what the other is doing, or when they get out of time, anomalies of this kind can be created. There is then a failure to make people better off, which is what the Government and Parliament intended.
  This is the second example of this sort of anomaly that we have had from the present Government. By raising the family income supplement eligibility limits more than the personal tax allowances were raised in the Budget, the Government have unintentionally increased the so-called poverty surtax and the disincentive to earn more at the lower end of the scale. I realise that the difficulty is the great number of means -related benefits which interact on each other. We have this maze of a system which constantly gives rise to these problems.
  We propose to simplify that maze by our tax credit system which would cover some of these points. If the Government are not going ahead with that, I ask them what they propose to do. May we be assured that blunders of the kind revealed by the regulations will be avoided in future?
  5.25 p.m.
  The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I have served in our respective Whips' Offices, and if there was one lesson which I learned, as I am sure he learned, it was that there is always greater resentment when a benefit is given to some but not given in full to others than if no benefit had been given at all. The temporary anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is a good example of that. But it is only a temporary anomaly. I do not object to the Opposition raising it. They are voicing the worries of perfectly respectable organisations, such as Age Concern. However, I wonder at their tardiness in raising it.
  For example, I wonder why the point was not made by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in the debate on the Budget resolutions on 28th March 1974 when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made the announcement. She said:
  "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment … has told me that … the increases in pensions and other benefits should not affect existing rent and rate rebates and rent allowances".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 646.]
  My right hon. Friend was perfectly clear about the matter, and it is astonishing to me that the point was not raised then.
  The anomaly arose because of the desire to raise the retirement pension as soon as possible, in July rather than in October. I am sure the whole House approves that. Had the normal process been carried out—the process which was carried out in the Conservative administration as well as in the Labour administration before that—there would then have had to be counted in the total income in assessing rate rebate the increased pension which pensioners would have received on 22nd July. That would have meant a reduction in people's incomes, which both my right hon. Friends—they were acting in concert with one another and knew what each other intended—were determined should not happen.
  The price is a temporary anomaly—I hope for not very long. Whereas the original decision of March this year
  1004
  meant that nobody had a reduction in income, equally nobody has had a reduction in income now and pensioners' incomes will have increased.
  Some hon. Members opposite criticised me for the amount of money which I spent on publicity in ensuring that people were made aware of their rights under the rebate scheme. I went on and on about it. My Department spent £200,000 and it was accused of extravagance. However, all the information coming to us from local authorities is that this is the highest take-up figure ever for a means-tested benefit of this sort, and I am delighted by it.
  The position is not as grave as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe thinks, because people on supplementary benefit have their rent and rates paid for them anyway. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the needs allowance and asked why it should not be increased straight away. There are 4 million people entitled to rate rebates. To have increased the needs allowance for 2 million pensioners would have meant that we would have increased it for 2 million people unselectively. That seems to me bad sense, and bad Tory doctrine.
  Mr. Clarke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)
  Motion made,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 8th February 1974 relating to the Members designated members of the European Parliament on 19th December in Session 1972–73 of the last Parliament, Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish, Mr. John E. Hill, Sir John Peel, and Mr. Rafton Pounder be discharged from membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mrs. Peggy Fenner, Mr. Ralph Howell and Mr. Michael Shaw be designated members of the European Parliament:
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: This is far too important a subject to pass without discussion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman taking objection to the motion? If he objects to it, I cannot put it.
  Mr. English: Yes, Sir. I am doing so in the formal sense because I think that it needs discussion and I wish to see it discussed at a later date in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

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

  HOSPITAL SERVICES (BOURNEMOUTH)
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: I wish to draw attention to a very serious matter which concerns the Boscombe General Hospital, the one hospital of some note and importance within my constituency.
  At present it is planned to begin the work of construction of a new district general hospital at Castle Lane, Bournemouth, early in 1977. That starting date should mean that the first phase of building should be complete and able to receive patients by 1980. I feel bound to draw attention to the grave public disquiet existing in Bournemouth at present and to the fears of its citizens about the situation which would confront the hospital services there if the planned starting date for the new hospital were not adhered to. The present situation in the town has become extremely serious.
  Bournemouth has a large and increasing elderly population, and one does not need to be a doctor to know that the incidence of illness rises sharply among the over-70s, leading to the need for more hospital beds per head of population in this area than in almost any other part of the country, but instead of Bournemouth having more hospital beds per head of population, the present position is that the town is well down on the regional norm, with the result that the number of beds is grossly inadequate for the population of the area. It is also short of operating theatres as well.
  To serve a Population of 250,000, only 37 beds are available suitable for acutely-ill patients in need of medical as opposed to surgical treatment and in need of
  1006
  constant nursing. As might be expected, there is a deplorably long waiting list for admission to hospital surgery. The situation has become noticeably worse in the last year; the waiting list for surgery has increased by 63 per cent. Even cases which the surgeons consider to be urgent, such as life threatening complaints like cancer of the breast in a woman or cancer of the bowel in a man, can be delayed up to six weeks before a bed can be found. Cases which require treatment quickly can be delayed up to six months and routine cases are awaiting their turn for about two and a half years.
  This shortage of beds means immense pressure on the available beds. The side effects of the shortage are that every day gravely ill patients arrive at the casualty department only to be left lying there whilst desperate efforts are made to find a bed. In some cases, seriously ill people have even been sent home again because no bed could be found.
  I will give some further examples of what has recently been taking place. A 72-year-old man with heart failure and retention of urine had to spend seven hours in the casualty department awaiting a bed. Another patient arrived in a pre-diabetic coma and lay in casualty for six hours until a bed could be found for her. A woman in her early 30s committed suicide because of the long wait for an ileostomy operation which had been unavoidably postponed because of lack of a bed for her.
  The emergency bed service—and I stress that it is an "emergency" service—has a waiting list which recently has been as high as 30, with patients waiting up to 10 days for acute admissions. There are sudden and unscheduled transfers of patients to different wards in different hospitals in the middle of the night. One patient in only 14 days moved five times, and on two occasions after 10.30 at night. This often means the oft-times too early discharge of patients.
  Naturally, all this has a serious effect on the hospital staff. Life for them is one continuous emergency. For the junior hospital doctors, who have to consider the medical details and problems of each patient, there is a continuous game of chess played with each patient who is a pawn 24 hours of each day in a seven-day week. Members of the staff have to

  1007
  try to make too little spread as far as possible. The result of the strain in doctors and nurses is that it is difficult to recruit and retain staff. Last year 146 nurses left the Royal Victoria Hospital and only 120 were recruited in their place. Too few staff means that the already inadequate number of beds cannot be utilised. That, again, increases pressure on the remaining staff. The vicious circle continues. That circle must be broken in the name of humanity and decency for people in the area.
  In the short term the regional hospital board has suggested a scheme to be implemented. It will relieve the pressure to a limited extent, but it is clear that the interim arrangements will not increase the number of beds available for acute surgical cases, and in fact will result in a reduction in the number of beds available for acute medical cases. At present there are 135 beds, and after reorganisation there will be 117.
  All concerned are in complete agreement, as the recent work study report showed, that the only solution to the problem is for the new hospital to be brought into operation as soon as possible, and that its building should not be delayed. It is vital for the morale of the medical and nursing staff that this should happen—that the new hospital be brought into operation at the earliest possible moment.
  Another point I wish to stress is the need for a scheme of development to include the construction of adequate accommodation for nurses, doctors and other staff who will be required. Many of the staff, in view of the hours which they work, need to be housed close to the hospital. I am informed that the local authorities would be in no position to provide accommodation for all the expected new staff for this essential hospital.
  In conclusion I return to the crisis situation which confronts the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe. As one senior surgeon at the hospital put to me this week:
  "The patients are suffering in Bournemouth, and if we cannot deal adequately with the acutely ill then the service has broken down. The people in Bournemouth are not getting the health service they need and are entitled to."
  5.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Robert C. Brown): The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle) has put his case with a vigour which reflects the importance he places on the improvement of the hospital service in the Bournemouth area. While I cannot agree with everything he said about the existing service, nor with the gloom of his prognostications, I understand his desire to see that a new district hospital is built to serve the population of Bournemouth as early as possible. Nobody would disagree with that general desire.
  Looking first at the existing hospital service, the Royal Victoria Hospital has two branches in Boscombe—Shelley Road and Gloucester Road—with which must be associated the branch at Westbourne. A total of 363 beds, acute and maternity, are provided at Shelley Road and Gloucester Road and 40 beds of the same type are provided at Westbourne. This bed provision cannot be considered in isolation and the total provision for the catchment area, with an estimated population in 1971 of 380,000, is some 2,100 beds of all categories. Of this total, 584 are provided at the modern district general hospital at Poole—271 at Christchurch hospital, 375—mainly geriatrics—at St. Leonards hospital, 100 at the Royal National hospital and the remainder at smaller hospitals in East Dorset.
  Since the reorganisation of the National Health Service in April this year these hospitals have been managed by the district management team for the East Dorset health district, which covers broadly the catchment area of the hospitals as it existed before reorganisation with an estimated population in 1981 of 443,000 of which 103,000—a very high proportion—will be aged 65 or over.
  I should now like to say something about the background to the facilities which exist at present in the district and in which improvements are contemplated.
  In February 1971 the medical executive committee of the former hospital management committee submitted a memorandum to the former regional hospital board which stated that to continue with the facilities then existing for

  1009
  another 10 years could, in the opinion of the committee, result in a total breakdown of services to patients. The memorandum asked the board to bring forward the construction of a new district general hospital which it had been planned should come into operation in about 1982. The new hospital is mainly to replace the three branches of the Royal Victoria hospital and part of Christchurch hospital, and a site is available for the hospital at Castle Lane, Bournemouth.
  In view of this memorandum the board and hospital management committee set up a joint committee to review the hospital services of the hospital management committee in the context that a new hospital was not likely to be available for a period of 10 years; to formulate recommendations to provide the best possible level of patient care until the new hospital was built, including reallocation of beds as appropriate; and to prepare a list of works which would make the best use in the short and longer term of the capital funds allocated in the years 1972–73 to 1975–76 and make the most economical use of medical, nursing and other manpower and revenue funds.
  The joint committee formulated plans for interim development of the service on the basis that the hospitals at Boscombe and Poole would have complementary rather than separate rôles in providing a service for the population of the catchment area. This principle was examined late last year in detail by the Dorset area joint liaison committee—a committee of officers in the three branches of the health service set up to prepare the way for NHS reorganisation—before it made its recommendations about the setting up of health districts in Dorset when the National Health Service was reorganised on 1st April this year. The Committee concluded that it was not practicable at that time to divide the Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch hospital complex in order to establish two health districts serving the eastern part of Dorset, one district containing the district general hospital at Poole and the other containing the district general hospital at Boscombe. The single health district for East Dorset recommended by the Joint Liaison Committee was established from April of this year on reorganisation of the NHS, but the possibility of dividing it into two
  1010
  health districts will be borne in mind at a later date when the new DGH is built at Bournemouth.
  As regards making the best use of capital investments, the joint committee, to which I referred earlier, set up in 1971 to examine the hospital service in Bournemouth, decided that expenditure on hospitals which were to be closed within 10 years should be restricted to commitments which are inescapable during the interim period. The joint committee's views on the sites of the three major hospitals in the complex were that the site of the Royal Victoria Hospital, Shelley Road, Boscombe, was very restricted and it would be impracticable and uneconomic to provide any major additions to the hospital, which was in any case to be closed when the new hospital was built at Bournemouth; that there was little potential for expansion at Poole DGH; and that Christchurch Hospital with its large site provided considerable room for expansion and any new building there could have permanent value.
  The main aims of the programme of interim development are, firstly, a better standard of primary care for accident and emergency patients, with an accident and emergency department at Poole DGH; secondly, a greater concentration of medicine and general surgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital and Poole DGH; thirdly, an improved orthopaedic service and a reduction in the orthopaedic waiting list; fourthly, a more positive rôle for Christchurch Hospital in the interim period with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation; fifthly, an improved geriatric service in the Bournemouth-Christchurch area; sixthly, improved and extended junior medical staff accommodation; and seventhly, the concentration of all children's beds at Poole DGH.
  To achieve these aims, changes have been initiated in bed allocations in hospitals in the health district and a programme of capital works has been started. The Wessex Regional Hospital Board and its successor regional health authority approved capital expenditure of £1½ million for this interim programme. These interim improvements were of course discussed with the hospital staff before being initiated, and I should like to say something about the progress made with them.

  1011
  The accident and emergency department has been established at Poole DGH and a consultant appointed to this speciality. The accident and emergency service at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe will be reduced to a minor service manned by general practitioners in October next.
  The transfer of cold orthopaedic services to Christchurch Hospital is in progress, and it is hoped that by the end of this month 55 orthopaedic beds will have been transferred to Christchurch from the Royal Victoria Hospital, followed by the movement of 16 surgical beds and 59 medical beds from Christchurch to the Royal Victoria Hospital in October of this year. This will provide more surgical and medical beds at the latter hospital where a new medical ward has been completed.
  The transfer of some children's beds to Poole DGH from the Royal Victoria Hospital has enabled the number of adult beds at the latter to be increased. Unfortunately, problems have been encountered in staffing these additional beds. A new geriatric assessment unit of 50 beds is being built at Christchurch. It is planned that this unit should come into operation at the end of this year when it will make a significant contribution to reducing pressure on geriatric beds.
  A major scheme for the provision of a rehabilitation unit at Christchurch and the improvement in out-patient facilities there is planned to start in this financial year. This was one of the priority schemes in the region for which my Department made capital funds available this year. Residential accommodation is being built at Christchurch Hospital and this work should be completed this year. Significant progress is, therefore, being made with the interim programme, but there is no room for complacency about the difficulties which exist, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, in providing a satisfactory service for the population of the district.
  The high proportion—well above the national average—of elderly people in the population of the Bournemouth area not only creates problems for the geriatric services but also contributes to the difficulties in recruiting staff to man existing beds, and those additional beds being pro-
  1012
  vided through the interim programme of improvements. Strenuous efforts are being made by the hospital authorities to recruit nurses, but this is proving extremely difficult because the higher pay and more socially accepted working hours which are available in other fields of employment naturally attract from the already reduced pool of persons of working age those suitable for work as nurses. In that respect I think that the hon. Gentleman will look forward, as I do, to the results of the independent inquiry on nurses' pay. This also applies to other grades of staff, for example, domestics and ancillary staff. There is fierce competition from the hotel and catering industry and from the expanding range of manufacturing industry which is moving into the Poole area. I understand that an analysis of recruitment carried out in 1973 showed that the Royal Victoria Hospital relies heavily on recruitment of nurses locally; only 26 per cent. of the total number of trained staff employed at that hospital were recruited from outside the area.
  The area health authority is making every effort to recruit nurses. "Back to Nursing" courses are held regularly to encourage those who have left the profession to return to it. A register of nurses in the community willing to undertake escort duties in ambulances is maintained so that these nurses can be called upon for this duty to avoid taking nurses away from wards. The major problem arising from the elderly population is, of course, the pressure on geriatric services. The interim programme seeks to improve this service but when completed it cannot totally meet the bed requirement on the basis of the guidelines for geriatric provision issued by my Department. Some 430 beds are available in private nursing homes; these are used predominantly by elderly patients. Further, the local authority provides some residential accommodation but, for the reasons I have already given, it finds difficulty in obtaining staff for its residential homes and for the Home Help Service.
  I should like to refer to the new district general hospital. The provision of a new hospital is obviously extremely important, and planning for this was started by the former regional hospital board and is continuing with the new health authorities. The place in the regional health authority's building programme for a

  1013
  major building project of this size is a matter for the regional authority to determine. It must necessarily have regard to the amount of capital allocated by my Department for health building for 1975–76 and later years. I am afraid I cannot at this stage say what the allocation will be. When this allocation is known it will be for the Dorset Area Health Authority and the regional authority to decide the priority to be given to the building of a new hospital in Bournemouth. In doing so they will take account of the competing claims for other deserving schemes in the area and in the region. Furthermore, the new community health councils, one of
  1014
  which relates to the East Dorset district, will need to be consulted by the health authorities, and this will provide the local community with a clear opportunity to play its part in planning the health service in the district.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity to explain at least some of the difficulties of the hospital service in the Bournemouth area.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Six o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Oystercatchers
  Oystercatchers
  Fishing Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Fishing Industry (Grants and Loans)
  DEFAMATION AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
  DEFAMATION AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
DEFENCE
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Equipment and Services Exports (South Africa)
  Equipment and Services Exports (South Africa)
  Rosyth (Security)
  Rosyth (Security)
  Army Officers' Training
  Army Officers' Training
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
EMPLOYMENT
  Food Manufacture and Distribution (Fuel Costs)
  Food Manufacture and Distribution (Fuel Costs)
  Threshold Agreements (Low-Paid Workers)
  Threshold Agreements (Low-Paid Workers)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Industrial Dispute)
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Industrial Dispute)
  Dunbartonshire
  Dunbartonshire
ENERGY
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Oil Pipelines (Sharing)
  Oil Pipelines (Sharing)
  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Offshore Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil (Divers)
  North Sea Oil (Divers)
  Offshore Oil (State Participation)
  Offshore Oil (State Participation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water and Sewerage Rates
  Water and Sewerage Rates
  Transport Grant (New Towns)
  Transport Grant (New Towns)
  Architecture (Matthew, Skillington Report)
  Architecture (Matthew, Skillington Report)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Manchester Council House Buyers Association
  Manchester Council House Buyers Association
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malawi (Mrs. Farrow's Deportation)
  Malawi (Mrs. Farrow's Deportation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Martin Lamarty
  Mr. Martin Lamarty
INDUSTRY
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Scotland (Regional Aid)
  Scotland (Regional Aid)
  Post Office Corporation
  Post Office Corporation
  Aircraft (Noise Reduction)
  Aircraft (Noise Reduction)
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Oil Tankers (Thames and Medway)
  Oil Tankers (Thames and Medway)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Aviation (Nationalisation)
  Aviation (Nationalisation)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Former Dependencies
  Former Dependencies
  Africa, South-East Asia, South America
  Africa, South-East Asia, South America
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Wessex Hospitals
  Wessex Hospitals
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Geriatrics
  Geriatrics
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
  Fuel Allowance (Paraffin Costs)
  Fuel Allowance (Paraffin Costs)
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Hospital Consultants (Pay)
  Hospital Beds (North-West England)
  Hospital Beds (North-West England)
WALES
  Offshore Oil Exploration
  Offshore Oil Exploration
  Housing (Council Purchasing for Letting)
  Housing (Council Purchasing for Letting)
  Roads (Planning)
  Roads (Planning)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Widows
  Widows
  Middle East Oil States
  Middle East Oil States
  Capital Inflow from Abroad
  Capital Inflow from Abroad
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Public Relations Consultant
  Departmental Public Relations Consultant
  Hughes Bakery (Belfast)
  Hughes Bakery (Belfast)
  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Press and Public Relations Staff
  Solicitors Measure
  Solicitors Measure
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Metrication (Shopkeepers' Costs)
  Metrication (Shopkeepers' Costs)
  Food Prices (London)
  Food Prices (London)
TRADE
  Aircraft Noise (London)
  Aircraft Noise (London)
  Shipping (Pollution)
  Shipping (Pollution)
  Western Jet Ltd.
  Western Jet Ltd.
  Nation Life Insurance Company
  Nation Life Insurance Company
  Fertilisers (Exports)
  Fertilisers (Exports)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

QUARANTINE OF ANIMALS
LORD DE CLIFFORD: 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 there are approved facilities for the immediate quarantine of animals arriving without notice at airports in the United Kingdom and how the cost of maintaining such facilities is financed.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are at present no approved facilities for quarantining animals arriving without notice at airports in the United Kingdom. Most dogs, cats and other rabies-susceptible mammals are imported on licences requiring them to go directly to pre-arranged approved quarantine premises and they are collected by authorised carriers at the airport. A new Importation Control Order for dogs and cats is currently under consideration.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask what would be the situation in the event of a dog or cat or other animal coming to the United Kingdom and being diverted, shall I say, to Manchester or Luton? Are there places where these animals due for quarantine can be dealt with? If so, who is financing them?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Order would provide for landing places for dogs and cats to be designated, in the same way as is already done for other rabies-controlled mammals, and it would be a condition of such designation that within two years an adequate animal holding facility would be provided. The financing of such facilities would be a matter for those who provided them. The position at present is that under the
1312
Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Order 1971 various airports and seaports are designated landing places. Luton is not one of these. Whether Luton will be designated in future will depend, of course, on the facilities provided.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to go on about this matter, but fog is not unknown in this country. Aircraft are diverted from Heathrow to Prestwick, Manchester, Luton and a number of other places. There were only two airports mentioned in my question, and will the Minister tell us who pays for the facilities there? Are there any premises licensed at any other airports apart from Heathrow and Gatwick?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are facilities at Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick and Southend. There is also an R.S.P.C.A. hostel at Heathrow maintained by the R.S.P.C.A. under charitable funds, but it is not suitable for rabies-susceptible animals or for quarantine purposes. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has in mind the new rabies control which will come into effect under the Rabies Act 1974, in which he took a fairly prominent part. These Orders will go some way to tighten up illegal landings.

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING AND MOTOR-RACING
11.8 a.m.
LORD PLATT: 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 they are aware that the British Grand Prix, which is due to be televised from Brand's Hatch on July 20, contains eight cars promoting cigarette brands and is sponsored by a major cigarette company; whether this renders the voluntary agreement with cigarette manufacturers valueless; or whether it is Her Majesty's Government's wish that the agreement should not apply to sponsored events.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord and Members of this House will know that an agreement exists between the Government and the cigarette

1313
manufacturers. It is a voluntary agreement, but does not cover the sponsorship of motor-racing. Noble Lords will be interested to know that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health saw members of the industry this week and told them quite definitely how much he deprecated using cars for the purpose of advertising cigarettes. They are in the process of thinking about the position.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which in many ways is a satisfactory one. But is that the answer to my Question, as to whether this renders the voluntary agreement valueless if this kind of advertising can go on? May I ask one supplementary question. Do Her Majesty's Government know that approximately a year ago, when a Grand Prix was run in Germany cigarette advertising on motorcars was withdrawn at the last minute through pressure on the authorities?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can add very much to what I have said already. The matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, draws attention is outside the voluntary agreement at the moment, but we are trying to include it in the voluntary agreement. The Government are watching this very carefully, and have had discussions about it. We hope something satisfactory will come out of it
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of his honourable friend to the fact that many of the British cigarette manufacturers are using advertising space in magazines which are printed abroad, but are on sale in this country, such as Time magazine, without including the Government health warning?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the attention of the Government has been called to that matter. We are looking into it. Some of those magazines appear on English planes, but, of course, they are all planes, which are serving not only this country but the world as a whole.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, is he aware that the magazines are on sale in this country?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of that.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that it has now been definitely proved that babies born to mothers who smoke are definitely undersized and debilitated, compared with babies born to non-smoking mothers, will the Government now pursue this anti-smoking campaign with far more vigour and determination than their predecessors?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the Government would take the view that they are pursuing this with a great deal of vigour, but I will call my right honourable friend's attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Segal.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government have any information at all about the effect which this advertising, or failure to advertise or give warning, has on smokers? It seems to me that it makes not a scrap of difference whether or not you read this on the packet.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand that there is evidence that more and more people are not smoking, but those people who are smoking are smoking more.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, without the smallest desire to criticise the Government on this matter, may I ask whether it is not a melancholy fact that public opinion will make no end of fuss about minute quantities of atomic waste escaping, but when you have something which destroys about 50,000 lives a year, and ruins many others, nobody seems to care?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that most smokers have now become used to the form of the Government warning, would it not be wise to consider a slight variation of the wording, preferably in a much stronger form?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will undertake to see that this suggestion is examined.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, to try to put the Record straight, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware (despite the impeccable logic and ability of the noble Lord who was the previous Lord Chancellor) that, comparing

1315
cigarette smoking with radio activity, at least the smoking of cigarettes does not have the same radioactive effect upon generations for thousands of years as does radiation? I do not think the comparison stands up.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord take note of the fact that no responsible scientist would endorse the remark which has just been made.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, since we are now clearly entering into debate, I suggest we move on to the next Question.

CONVENTION ON APARTHEID
11.15 a.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 they have now acceded to the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 30, 1973.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords. We strongly condemn apartheid and have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention on Apartheid, however, contains provisions which would violate the principles of international law concerning the proper exercise of international criminal jurisdiction. In our view, the problem of racial discrimination is more effectively dealt with in the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which we shall continue strictly to observe.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, apart from expressing my disappointment with that reply, may I ask the Minister this question? In view of the fact that we have made racial discrimination illegal in this country, would it not be consistent to support a Convention which would make the practice of apartheid illegal in international law?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am surprised at my noble friend's disappointment. I would have thought, on reading both Conventions, that the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would stand out as being infinitely preferable to the somewhat hurried and indefinite Convention which he seems to favour. I would add that it does seem that international opinion throughout the world supports the British view, in that 20 ratifications are needed for that Convention to be implemented and there has been only one so far, that from Hungary.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with reference to the foreign word employed in the Question, would the Minister give his understanding of the English interpretation of this foreign word?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the best I can do is "apartness".
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, does "apartness" constitute a crime under English law?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is one of the questions which should have been gone into very carefully before the Convention was somewhat hurriedly put together after the Resolution; only a very few weeks intervened between the Resolution of the United Nations and the promulgation of an actual Convention. One of the reasons why we do not so far subscribe to this Convention is precisely that it is seen to be repugnant both to principles of international law and to our own law.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have read both these Conventions, and is he aware that this Convention was adopted by an overwhelming majority within the United Nations? When he says that it was reached hurriedly, is he aware that for two years it was considered by UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights and other organisations, and prepared with very great care?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is entitled to his view, and so are Her Majesty's Government. There is evidence that there was a somewhat short interval between the adoption of the Resolution and the pro-mulgation of the Convention. I go no

1317
further. As to the acceptability of this Convention as drafted, I would remind the noble Lord that presumably like he other people have read both drafts, and we find that while 20 ratifications are necessary so far only one ratification has been forthcoming, that of Hungary. Indeed, only 12 others have gone so far as to sign, and they are mostly confined to the Continent of Africa and to Eastern Europe.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the majority of us on this side of the House deplore apartheid, and long to see the day when it is brought to an end?

CYPRUS
11.21 a.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement reads as follows:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a further Statement about Cyprus.
" Since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last reported to the House two days ago, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have had talks with Archbishop Makarios, the President of the Republic of Cyprus. They have also had talks with the Turkish Prime Minister and his colleagues and with Mr. Joseph Sisco, the American Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs. In these consultations and exchanges the aim of Her Majesty's Government has been to explore the details of a situation which remains very grave and to determine the lines on which progress might best be made. We have urged restraint on all concerned and have emphasised the need to avoid further unilateral action.
" The Security Council has met once and will be meeting again later to-day. The North Atlantic Council is also meeting regularly and playing a very helpful role.
1318
"It is essential that time should be allowed for this complex and confidential process to be pursued. My right honourable friends have made this clear to the Turkish Prime Minister and his acting Foreign Minister.
" We have also been in regular contact with the Government of Greece. Following our repeated representations, we were informed early yesterday that the orders for the replacement of the Greek officers in the Cyprus National Guard have been signed. This means that the officers who led the coup in Cyprus will be withdrawn from the Island. The withdrawal will start in the next few days. This is significant progress but only the first step towards a solution of the problem.
" This morning we have formally asked the Greek Government to send representatives to London immediately. We intend to discuss with the Greek Government and others concerned how the National Guard should be officered in future and whether the system of providing security within Cyprus should be modified. We believe that if we can get this right to the satisfaction of all concerned, it will be a major step forward towards the restoration of confidence and stability.
"There is now no fighting in the Island and Nicosia Airport was opened to traffic yesterday. Substantial numbers of British holiday-makers have already been able to leave. For the time being in a situation which is still highly uncertain I am sure that all British subjects considering a visit to Cyprus will wish to postpone their journey."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement to this House, and for bringing your Lordships up to date on international events. We welcome the initiative being taken by Her Majesty's Government in holding talks with President Makarios, the Turkish Prime Minister, and other interested parties. It is very important that the Government continue to work for a general consensus both of opinion as well as of action.
I do not want to press the noble Lord at this time to divulge information that

1319
might compromise these current and delicate negotiations. However, we welcome the withdrawal of the Greek officers of the Cyprus National Guard, but we ask the Government to keep a careful watch on the situation so that these officers are not replaced by men of similar political persuasion, since that would make any withdrawal a rather hollow gesture. I trust that this point will be made very clear to the Greek delegation when it arrives in London, which I hope will be very soon. We are also pleased that peace has at long last returned to Cyprus, and that British holiday-makers are being allowed to leave. We fully endorse the advice being given by the British Government to potential visitors to the Island not to go.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement to us. It certainly represents some progress in the right direction. May I ask him who defines what is meant by "those officers who led the coup"? Is it not essential that we should get rid of all those officers who were in fact involved in this, and not just the relatively few leaders? Secondly, may I ask him where this man Sampson is at the present moment, and what is going to be his future? Thirdly, what orders have been given to the replacement officers about the necessity for maintaining, or getting back to the state of independence for Cyprus?—because I should like to endorse what has been said from the other Bench that merely replacing one set of officers by another may not be progress.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I appreciate what has been said about the need to be restrained in our own speculations about the rather difficult and very important talks which are continuing at the moment. However, if I may address myself to one or two of the questions, I should be very glad to try to help your Lordships on this matter. In regard to the point about the replacement of the officership of the National Guard, which both noble Lords stressed, I have no doubt at all that this will be one of the most important questions for discussion with the Greek Government as well as others concerned. The point is well made and, I think, fully taken that the replacement must be total in respect of the change of political bias which clearly
1320
obtained in the officers, which led to the coup. Therefore, the replacement must achieve the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, described.
As to the whereabouts of the leader of the coup I have no definite knowledge. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating what I have said more than once in your Lordships' House, that we recognise Archbishop Makarios as the only President of the Republic of Cyprus.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment, if it is not embarrassing to him, upon the attitude of the Americans in this matter, which struck me as rather disappointing?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that our talks with the Americans, with Mr. Sisco, have led to a complete understanding by our friends and allies in the United States of the British position and attitude on this important matter, and that they are supporting us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would not this be a good opportunity to discuss with Archbishop Makarios and others who are going to be present at these discussions the possibility of introducing Turkish elements—that is, Turkish Cypriot elements—into the Army at the present time, and also Turkish Cypriot officers?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord refers to the possibility of a mixed officer-ship of the National Guard. It is an interesting suggestion, and one which I would immediately say personally, if one could get it, would be most desirable. I hesitate to indicate how successful such a suggestion might be in the present context, but it is right that it should be made, and I am quite sure that it will be discussed and canvassed, at least to some extent.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when those concerned are considering the replacement of the officers in the National Guard, they would take into account the possibility that United Nations' officers should occupy that position, in view of the fact that there is already a United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is certainly a possibility which should be considered. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for raising it. Of course, I must restrain myself from expressing my own enthusiasms. Your Lordships' House is anxious that this question of the officership of the National Guard should be placed on a permanently satisfactory basis. All suggestions—we have heard at least two which are of great value—will certainly be considered by our own Government in consultation with the other two guarantor signatories.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would my noble friend try to see that most of us appreciate the work of the 3,000 troops put in by Austria, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Sweden who unostentatiously have done a considerable job of work in a most difficult situation? Finally, is my noble friend aware that a Greek newspaper in Athens reported in 1972 that Archbishop Makarios had met Grivas and that not long after Grivas's death Makarios felt that he could grant a great amnesty? Those discussions were never reported publicly, but Makarios must have felt that there were the seeds of possible and continuing co-operation with Grivas. Grivas must have been disappointed with a Fascist régime in Greece. Is that report of the meeting available to the Foreign Office? Has it been seen?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure we would all endorse what my noble friend said in tribute to the action and deportment of the United Nations Forces in Cyprus. On the question of discussions which President Makarios has had, especially in the last few months, with representatives of EOKA, a good deal of publicity has been given to these and it was a sign of his readiness to try to achieve basic unity on the Island, even with elements which continued to work actively for enosis, which he, for practical and sound reasons, had set aside temporarily.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, over a thousand of Makarios's friends have been
1322
arrested. Nothing was said about this in Statements. Could the noble Lord say anything about these arrests?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, no doubt there have been arrests. These would seem to be extensive, but I could give no figures. I am certain we shall wish to know what happens to these people and will exert ourselves, with others, to see that they are not harshly treated, and indeed are released as soon as possible.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government still recognise President Makarios as head of the Government of Cyprus, will they take steps to press for the release of his supporters who have been arrested?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have just said so, and I am glad to have the noble Lord's reinforcement of our intention.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, would my noble friend be prepared to confirm that the British request is not for the replacement of the Greek officers in the National Guard, but for their withdrawal? Secondly, would he confirm that it is the determined purpose of Her Majesty's Government to achieve the restoration of the legal Government in Cyprus?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Statement made this perfectly clear. It describes the question of replacement as a first step. It goes on to indicate that we shall work for a modification of the security content and structure within the Island. In regard to my noble friend's second question, the answer is unqualifiably in the affirmative.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have a great deal of business to do to-day. I suggest we now move to the next item of business.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
11.36 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In asking your Lordships' to give the Bill a Second Reading we seek to close a loophole in the original Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 which required licensing of boarding kennels by local authorities. The original Act was passed because it was found by many people that the standard of dog boarding was far below that required and to ensure their good health. Also, in many cases, considerable cruelty was involved. Unfortunately, when that Act was passed, Clause 5(1)(a) was so phrased that any person who wished to evade inspection and licensing—the inspection had to take place before licensing—used the clause as a loophole.
A person who did not wish to have his kennels inspected had only to prove that his main business was other than the boarding of dogs. Then such a person was free to board dogs without the local authority having any right of inspection or the person needing a licence. This evasion has caused great concern to animal welfare organisations, particularly the National Canine Defence League, who have been trying to close the loop-hole for many years.
I do not propose to weary your Lord-ships by reciting the number of cases that have been found where dogs have been boarded in the most appalling circumstances. However, cases have been discovered where dogs have been boarded in piggeries and where the farmer has claimed he was a pig farmer and did not need a licence or inspection. There was also a case of a breeder of thoroughbred dogs who found some derelict cottages which he used for boarding facilities on the side. In both cases the council knew of the circumstances, but were unable to do anything because the main business of the people involved was other than boarding.
I have knowledge of a wood merchant, a fishmonger, certain hoteliers and pet shops doing this. They do it as a subsidiary to their main occupation. As a result, they neither require inspection nor licensing. If they can prove that they
1324
are not engaging in this activity as their main occupation, then even ladies' hairdressers or farmers could do it. I am not saying that everyone who boards dogs as a subsidiary to their main business treats them cruelly or with lack of care. I and others—as well as the societies—feel that there is great need for the standards which are required for someone who runs a main business of boarding dogs to apply to those who board them as a subsidiary business.
Local authorities must be in a position to inspect, either with the aid of vets or with their own officers, so that the main provisions which are required in the Bill of 1963 can be applied to everyone, and that neither through ignorance nor in any other way may people avoid coming up to these standards. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who cannot be here to-day, supports the principle of the Bill, but does not consider it goes far enough. He wishes to increase the inspecting powers under the Bill. I would probably agree with him.
My Lords, I should like to say one word as to why we have omitted the greyhound tracks and premises under the Betting and Lotteries Act 1963. If this requirement had been left in this Bill, they would have been doubly inspected. The National Greyhound Racing Society have a very adequate inspection system in operation in all the establishments and tracks controlled by them, and this is giving very good results. I repeat that I am not saying that everyone who boards dogs without a licence is treating them cruelly and without care but without any doubt at all there are some who are doing this. I say again that we are trying to ensure that there is one standard of inspection and licensing for every person who boards dogs in this country. Meanwhile, I would say to the public that when boarding dogs they should ask whether the kennels are licensed and, if they are not, they should themselves inspect the kennels before boarding their dogs, there, and satisfy themselves that the standard is up to that which they want for their dogs. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord de Clifford.)
11.42 a.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord,

1325
Lord de Clifford, for his careful explanation of the purpose of his Bill, and for giving the House an opportunity to consider the present statutory position of animal boarding kennels. I listened with much interest to his speech, because I have to confess that before to-day I was by no means clear about the purpose of the amendment to the 1963 Act—which of course is the Animal Boarding Establishments Act—which he is seeking to make through his Bill.
My Lords, the 1963 Act provides, of course, for a system of licensing and inspection by local authorities of establishments where dogs and cats—that is, "animals" for the purpose of the Act—are taken in for boarding as a business. Such establishmets are required to provide, among other things, adequate accommodation, facilities for exercise, food, drink and bedding material, and they must take all necessary precautions against disease and fire. As your Lordships will know, the Act had its origin in 1963 in another place as a Private Member's measure—a similar Bill had been sponsored by the R.S.P.C.A. as early as 1956—and it was designed to supplement the provisions of the general law protecting animals from cruelty and suffering by providing specific safeguards against unsatisfactory boarding establishments which had, I believe, been causing the R.S.P.C.A. concern for some time—and here I should like to pay a tribute to the R.S.P.C.A. This additional legislation in respect of animal boarding establishments did very much what the Pet Animals Act 1951 had done earlier in respect of pet shops.
My Lords, the 1963 Act was generally welcomed and seems broadly to have been effective in achieving its main purpose of controlling those who run animal boarding establishments as a business. The Bill before the House to-day focuses attention upon one part of the 1963 Act; that is, subsection (1) of Section 5, which defines a boarding establishment for the purposes of the Act. By adding some words to one part of the first proviso to Section 5(1), it effectively alters the definition of a boarding establishment, and in so doing modifies the scope of the Act. It is essential, therefore, I suggest, for us to understand the purpose of the proposed amendment and to weigh its implications.
1326
Section 5(1) defines keeping a boarding establishment for animals as carrying on at premises of any nature (including a private dwelling) a business of providing accommodation for other people's animals; but it makes the proviso that a person shall not be deemed to keep a boarding establishment by reason only of his providing accommodation for animals in connection with a business of which the provision of accommodation is not the main activity. The purpose of the proviso, which was added to the original Bill after its introduction, is to exclude from the licensing system such persons or organisations as hoteliers, British Rail, airlines and dog tracks which, incidental to their main business, make accommodation available at a charge for their clients' animals. In other words, the definition of a boarding establishment in the Act was designed to confine the scope of the statutory licensing system to the area where there was at that time evidence of abuses; that is, to establishments that were making a business out of providing accommodation for cats and dogs—boarding kennels in the generally accepted sense of the term.
The sponsors of the 1963 Act made it clear that this was their intention. The amendment in the Bill would appear to remove the exemption for those places where accommodation is provided incidentally to the main business, since the effect of the addition to proviso (a) in Section 5(1) of the Act would be to require to be licensed under the Act persons who provide at a charge and overnight any accommodation for animals (whether it is in connection with their main business or not) except, of course, for persons providing accommodation at dog tracks, which was explained by the noble Lord. My Lords, some weeks ago, I believe, it was reported in the Press that the purpose of the Bill was to remedy a loophole in the 1963 Act; and, indeed, the noble Lord has said to-day that that is its purpose. The Act was alleged to allow any person who runs some other business to take money for accepting other people's animals and housing them—that is, for boarding them in the accepted sense—without being subject to the licensing and inspection requirements which the Act lays down. It was suggested that this has given rise to some kennel owners being able to board cats and dogs under very poor conditions

1327
with impunity. I am somewhat puzzled by this since, as I understand it, the need for the amendment to the Act which is proposed seems to be based upon a misconstruction of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act.
The Act at present requires to be licensed any person who takes in animals for boarding at a fee, whatever other business or businesses he conducts on the same premises and whatever their scale, provided that he does not take in the animals in connection with (that is, as an incident of) his other business, and that the other business does not have as its main activity the boarding of animals. For example, a market gardener who uses a spare piece of land for boarding kennels could not avoid having to be licensed on the grounds that his main business is market gardening. He provides accommodation for animals at a fee; he does not do so in connection with his market gardening business, and accordingly the exemption given by the proviso does not apply to him. Nor, my Lords, would it apply to the wood merchant quoted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford; nor, indeed, to ladies' hairdressers, farmers or anyone else.
My Lords, if, therefore, there are kennels or other establishments providing accommodation of inadequate standard at the present time, I would suggest that they do not exist because of a loophole in the Act, but rather because the provisions of the Act are not being fully enforced; and I cannot at present see how the position would be remedied by the proposed amendment to the Act embodied in the noble Lord's Bill.
That is one point: the other point, of course, is the effects of the Bill itself and I should like to turn to those briefly. The main effect would be that it would remove the exemption under the 1963 Act from the licensing system for those persons who provide at a charge overnight accommodation for animals as an incidental to their main business. One thinks immediately of hoteliers who allow their guests to bring pets with them for a small extra charge (and I do not mean hoteliers who are doing this as a business or a sideline, who would be covered by the existing Act), those hoteliers who merely allow an individual dog to be brought in for a night or two. However,
1328
there are other categories of persons or organisations who would be affected. For example, I understand that in certain circumstances British Rail find themselves obliged to look after animals in transit for a limited period, and for this service a small fee is charged.
At Heathrow Airport a service exists for animals which are waiting to go abroad to be kept for a short period at a R.S.P.C.A. hostel on the site—we dealt with this on an earlier Question asked by the noble Lord to-day—and a charge is made by the R.S.P.C.A. to the airline, which is then passed on to the owner. Such accommodation as this would, as I understand it, be brought within the licensing system that the Act provides if the amending Bill were passed. I think it is also possible that the insertion of the words proposed by the Bill would have the effect of requiring veterinary surgeons to be licensed when they take in sick dogs or cats at a charge and keep them overnight. The exemption given under proviso (b), which applies to the keeping of an animal at any premises because of a requirement under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, is for premises where animals are kept under the quarantine regulations. The only type of boarding accommodation to remain covered by the exemption in proviso (a) to Section 5(1) would be that provided at or in connection with a track licensed under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. In passing, I would mention that the reference to that Act in the Bill is not quite correct, but I do not want to make too much of a point of this, as it is always rather a joy to see a Bill actually in print.
Accordingly, the effect of this amending Bill, if it were to become law, would be quite substantially to widen the scope of the original Act by bringing in these new classes of persons for licence. This may or may not be desirable. It is for the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to point to evidence of inadequate accommodation being provided in hotels, by British Rail, or the airlines, or by vets, and for your Lordships to consider in the light of that evidence whether the situation warrants the extension of the Act's scope. It would certainly place an increased burden of inspection upon the local authorities, who have, as your Lordships will know, responsibility for enforcing the Act. I wonder whether the noble Lord has consulted

1329
them about this, or whether he has had discussions with those whose interest lies in the tourist industry or in the veterinary profession in order to ascertain their views. I hope the comments I have made will be of assistance to the noble Lord and to your Lordships.
Basically, I think that the noble Lord has not understood the wording of the original Act. The whole matter really hangs on these words, "in connection with". I suggest to him that he should look at that carefully with his advisers, because the Government do not put the same interpretation on those words as he has, although, of course—and I say this in the presence of many noble and learned Lords—it is eventually for the courts to decide. However, apart from the fact that the Bill is really not necessary at all, because what the noble Lord is quite rightly trying to do is already covered by the 1963 Act, it would have quite unnecessary, far reaching and, indeed, undesirable consequences which go far beyond what the noble Lord intended.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am a great lover of cats and dogs, but we are here to-day with a great array of legal talent to discuss a matter of vital importance to men and women. I suggest that we should either give the Bill a Second Reading—it will get lost anyway in view of the fact that the end of the Session is approaching—or else reject it and proceed with the real business of the day.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I may say that there has been a complete volte face from what was produced by the Home Office in 1968 when the Bill was discussed, when they said that they could see no objection to it. However, if the noble Lord says that they are already covered, I would hesitate to press my Bill. I would only suggest that local authorities should be told that they are covered. With your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw the Motion and the Bill.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
11.55 a.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rehabilitated persons and spent convictions]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Viscount said: As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to prevent a person in this country suffering on account of a conviction many years ago being brought to light when he has really lived it down and most people are ignorant of it and have forgotten all about it, if they ever knew of it. In some respects, the Bill does not go far enough, but in others I suggest that it goes too far. It does not go far enough as it now stands, in that it makes no provision for preventing a refusal to employ a person on account of his spent conviction or dismissal by an employer when the employer becomes aware of the spent conviction. That, I hope, may be partly remedied by a new clause which I have tabled.
Of course, the Bill also makes no provision for the kind of case which was mentioned to me by a noble Lord only this morning—the refusal, for instance, of a licence to drive a public service vehicle because of a conviction many years ago. So, while the Bill does not cover all that I should have liked to have seen it cover, it does cover a certain field and, in that field, I think that its aims and objectives are too wide to make it really effective. I dare say that I shall be reproved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for having tabled so many Amendments to the Bill which was before this House at about the same time last

1331
year and had some consideration then and which has passed through the Commons and had some consideration there.
I think that I shall be able to demonstrate, with my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, that our Amendments are designed to improve the Bill and not to wreck it, and to make changes which I hope the Committee will think should be made. The real danger is that a conviction in this country may be brought to light and may affect someone living here. I cannot think that there is any great danger of a conviction in a foreign country being resuscitated and affecting someone living here.
This Bill as drafted applies to a conviction anywhere in the world—China, Russia, Ethiopia, the United States. In considering it one has to have regard to the other side of the coin, and look at the position of people who did not want to infringe its provisions, who are not muckraking or activated by malice, and who want to find out whether or not a question they wish to ask, or a statement they wish to make or publish, infringes its provisions. Under the provisions of this Bill it is difficult enough, in all conscience, in relation to a conviction in this country to find out whether the period of rehabilitation in respect of that conviction has expired or, perhaps, has been extended by reason of subsequent conduct on the part of the person convicted. But it becomes almost impossible, certainly increasingly difficult, if the conviction is in a foreign country, to find out whether the conviction and sentence be one which attracts a 10-year or a five-year rehabilitation period, or is a conviction of a character that does not come within the scope of this Bill at all.
In America, I believe it is not infrequent to pass indeterminate sentences of, say, five to 15 years' imprisonment. How does one relate such a sentence to the rehabilitation period under this Bill? I do not know. I suppose that at some time the Watergate proceedings will come to an end. In the United States, there is apparently a system of pre-bargaining whereby, in return for spilling the beans about other people, an accused person can obtain a lesser sentence than he would otherwise get. In the years to come, many people may want to write about Watergate. Books will be published,
1332
probably many years later when the dust has settled and the affair can be seen in better perspective. But if I understand this Bill correctly, if the rehabilitation period has expired following on the lesser sentence imposed as a result of pre-bargaining, it will not be possible to refer to the conviction of an American who has suffered such a conviction without serious risk of being sued in this country, whether the reference be in a book, a newspaper, a statement, a broadcast or on television.
Authors write books, serious books, for a variety of reasons, and we sometimes see serious plays televised. If someone is sued for referring to such a spent conviction in America, the author of what is published and the publishers will not, as the Bill now stands, be able to rely on the defence that all that they said was true, unless the publication or the book was written for bona fide educational, scientific or professional purposes. That is under Clause 8(8)(b). Those are rather restricting words, and so there will be great difficulty, I should have thought, in maintaining the right which now exists—I am not dealing here with muckraking or anything of that sort—for authors, historians and other such people to give a true and accurate account of what they think has happened.
I suggest to the Committee that in seeking to make this Bill apply in relation to convictions anywhere in the world, it is attempting too much. I suggest that it would be better, and make the Bill much more workable, if its limits were confined to convictions that took place in this country for offences contrary to British laws. When I say "British", I include the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So I have tabled this Amendment. The net which this Bill casts is far too wide. Is not the Bill as it stands getting a long way from the object of seeking to protect people living in this country for offences contrary to their reputations and damage in other ways by reason of a spent conviction? I beg to move.
12.6 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I am certainly not blaming the noble and learned Viscount for putting down so many Amendments. Any Member of this House is entitled to put down as many Amendments as he thinks right to any Bill.

1333
The effect of this Amendment is, I regret, quite different from what the noble and learned Viscount thinks it is. Since the Bill has been redrafted by Parliamentary draftsmen, the draftsman first considers the question: what are convictions for the purposes of the Bill? Then he considers: what are sentences for the purposes of the Bill? Thus, we go on from there. The question of how a foreign conviction is to be regarded in the way mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount is not the subject matter of this clause. It is the subject matter of Clause 5(1)(d). The sole purpose of introducing overseas convictions here is that, under the Bill, if a man commits offences here and then goes straight for long enough then under the rehabilitation period he is protected so far as those convictions are concerned.
The point of the words raised by the Amendment is that if later on he commits here a further serious offence then he has queered his pitch, his earlier offence will never be rehabilitated; he may in due time be able to live down the second offence, but it will stop the rehabilitation period running in respect of the first offence. The sole effect of the words contained in the Amendment is that if a man commits some crimes—possibly fairly small crimes—here and then goes, perhaps, to Australia, and remains living a life of high crime for years in Australia, it is the object of the provision that he cannot then come back here and say, "Because this time has elapsed since I left the country, although I have been living on nothing but crime in the last 10 years, my earlier offences are now rehabilitated". That is all it does.
LORD DIPLOCK: With great respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I think that this clause has a different and greater effect from that which he suggested. First, in Clause 5(10)(d) there is defined how one ascertains the relevant sentence for rehabilitation; that is, it shall be—
" a sentence of … one of the descriptions mentioned in this section which most nearly corresponds to the sentence imposed ".
That immediately puts one in difficulties with foreign systems of law under which, as for example in a number of States of the United States, a sentence is given either indeterminate or with a minimum of, say, one year and a maximum of 20
1334
years. Is that a one-year sentence or is it a 20-year sentence?
As regard the help to the person accused, if I understand Clause 6(4) aright—and I cannot guarantee that I do—it would have this effect. Someone has committed an offence in England and during the rehabilitation period he is convicted of an offence anywhere in the world, including those countries—and there are many of them in Europe—where one can be convicted and sentenced in absentia without ever having appeared before the court at all. The effect of this clause in bringing foreign convictions, which includes convictions in absentia, into the Bill, and thus into Clause 5(10)(d) as well as into subsection (4)(a), would be that a person whom anyone else would regard as rehabilitated loses his right to rehabilitation because he has been convicted in absentia anywhere in the world.
12.3 p.m.
LORD FOOT: It surprises me a little that the noble and learned Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment appear to be most concerned about the difficulty that anybody might have in ascertaining the facts and particulars of some conviction which somebody had been subjected to abroad; whereas, as it seems to me, the main concern we ought to have in considering this matter is as follows. Let us suppose that a youth in some foreign country commits some offence and is convicted for it. Then he makes his way to this country and builds up for himself by reputable living a position of some distinction and reputation. Is it more right that any muck-raker should be entitled to disclose that conviction to the world, than that he should be allowed, as this Bill prevents, to rake up some conviction which occurred in this country? I cannot see any difference in principle at all.
The whole object of this Bill is to allow people to be rehabilitated. I do not see why if a person has come to this country and has lived here for a long time, he should be denied the right which is available to people who have lived all their lives in this country. But that is the second arm, as it seems to me, of the argument against this Amendment, which is additional to the argument which was made by the noble and

1335
learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. If I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, aright, he was saying that a difficulty arises because in some foreign countries a person can be convicted of an offence in absentia. I am not quite sure that I understand the point of that. Let us suppose that a person is convicted as a young man in a foreign country in absentia, and he then comes to this country and lives a blameless life for the rehabilitation period. The conviction was defective because it was in absentia, and is that not an overwhelming reason why the rehabilitation process of this Bill should come into effect? I should have thought, if the conviction was suspect from the beginning through having been made in absentia, that that would be all the more reason for allowing that conviction of that man to be buried after the necessary rehabilitation period had gone by.
12.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, could help us on this matter, because I genuinely do not understand the speech that he made. I think what he said was that the object of this paragraph, since it related to the definition of a conviction, was to stop somebody who had been convicted in Australia in the circumstances that he described, for a large number of crimes, coming back and saying, "I have been away. Please forget all about my previous very small criminal record in Britain. Now I am cleared and can sue anybody who says that I am a criminal." But, with respect, it cannot—and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us—have only that effect, because it cannot do what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has just suggested that it does do, or should do. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will help me about this matter.
I understand that at this stage we are dealing in subsection (3) with what a "sentence" means and in subsection (4) with what a "conviction" means. We then get to the later provisions in the Bill, and to the Table on page 5 which sets out the rehabilitation period from the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence was imposed. Therefore a conviction must relate to, or include, a foreign conviction because it is so defined
1336
under Clause 1(4)(a). Then we get to page 8 and deal with Clause 5(10)(d), whereby a sentence imposed by a foreign court shall be treated as a sentence of one of the descriptions in the Table on page 5.
Therefore, am I not right in saying—and will the noble and learned Lord confirm—that not only does the definition of a "conviction", which includes a foreign conviction, prevent somebody from going to Australia and doing what the noble and learned Lord said, but it also has the effect that after the proper period a foreign conviction—if it is of the sort that would be rehabilitated if it happened in Britain—would also be rehabilitated? I think that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Foot, wants to happen. If that is so, could the noble and learned Lord tell us how a member of the public who may have to deal with this matter, or indeed an official who may have to deal with it, is to work out—because there are at least two forms of sanction if he gets it wrong; one in tort and possibly another by way of prosecution—which is the nearest corresponding sentence under the tables in Clause 5?
The noble and learned Lord must appreciate that people are at peril of either fairly substantial damages in tort or, alternatively, a criminal conviction under Clause 9 if they get it wrong. Therefore, we ought to know a little more from the noble and learned Lord about how he thinks this will work. We want to know how we are to discover what happened in the foreign court; how long the sentence was; whether it was a sentence which is the equivalent of one or other of the categories in the Table in Clause 5; and, if so, when it is said to be subject to being spent. If the noble and learned Lord can tell us more about how this will work, the Committee can apply its mind to whether or not it ought to stay in the Bill.
LORD GARDINER: I will be very happy to discuss that point under Clause 5. The reason why I shall be happier to discuss it under Clause 5 instead of under this Amendment is that this Amendment relates to Clause 1. There is no Amendment down to Clause 5(10)(d). As I had to leave at crack of dawn for Belfast on Wednesday morning and returned only late last night, which was

1337
my first sight of the Amendments. I am concentrating on the Amendments which are here and dealing with them as they arise, rather than on the Bill as a whole. But I shall certainly deal with that when we come to Clause 5, which deals with what is the effect of a foreign sentence so far as rehabilitation for that sentence is concerned.
This Amendment has nothing to do with that at all. The sole effect of this subsection is simply to answer the question: "What is a conviction for the purposes of the Act?" The reason why it includes a foreign conviction—not sentence, you see, which is Clause 5—is because otherwise a man who had committed an offence here for which there was a rehabilitation period running, could go to Australia, lead a life of high crime and then come back and say: "You see, I am a rehabilitated person because the rehabilitation period has expired and you cannot count against me any overseas conviction." That cannot be right, and that is why this Amendment is wrong.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That will not really do. With respect, it is no use telling the Committee that we have to wait until Clause 5, because in Clause 5 we have the word "conviction" immediately before the Table, as I pointed out. Now a conviction is defined, as the noble and learned Lord rightly says, at the beginning of the Bill and therefore a conviction, for the purposes of rehabilitation under Clause 5 provisions includes a foreign conviction.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: And you get rehabilitated after the rehabilitation period has gone by. It is no use saying that we must wait until Clause 5, because if we do that we shall then be told that it is no use attacking the principle of foreign convictions because that was brought in under Clause 1—and the Committee have already passed Clause 1 and it now stands part of the Bill. Therefore I am not prepared, for myself, to accept that the definition of "conviction" in Clause 1(4)(a) is as narrow as the noble and learned Lord has said, because if we accept that now, we cannot re-open the whole matter in principle later on. I do not see how we can possibly get round that argument.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has not had much opportunity for considering the Amendments that have been tabled. We have all had difficulties, because of the short time between Second Reading and now, in preparing Amendments and it may be that we should have put down a consequential Amendment to Clause 5(10). But that is by the way, and this is a convenient point to raise this matter.
I am sorry, too, that the noble and learned Lord has completely failed to understand my observations when I moved this Amendment. That may be my fault. There are two things here one has to consider. First, what kind of conviction comes within the scope of the Bill initially? Then there is a second question—and it is the only one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, directed his reply—namely, in what circumstances shall subsequent misconduct extend the rehabilitation period in respect of a prior conviction? It was to that, and that alone, that he addressed his observations. My observations were on a wider field. I may be corrected by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I am wrong, but Clause 1(4) says—and I shall read only the material words:
"In this Act, references to a conviction … include references—
(a) to a conviction by or before a court outside Great Britain; ".
And in the preceding section you get these words:
"In this Act 'sentence 'includes any order made by a court in dealing with a person in respect of his conviction of any offence or offences, other than—
(a) an order for committal …"
So reading those two together, I must say I came to the conclusion which I stated.
The noble and learned Lord may tell me that I am wrong, but I think the language is clear. This Act in scope is designed to apply to every foreign conviction, followed by any kind of sentence, except the sentences referred to in (a) and (b). That was the gravamen of my speech in moving this Amendment. I did not deal then with the question of rehabilitation. I am quite prepared to deal with that now or later and to discuss whether the period could be extended; but I am on the scope of the Bill and I have not been answered on that by the

1339
noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, at all.
In dealing with this, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made an impassioned plea about the youth who was convicted abroad and had some sentence imposed upon him, and he asked: Why should he not be rehabilitated, and why should he be at the mercy of the muck-raker? I should have thought the right way of dealing with "muck-raking" in these circumstances was perhaps by making some amendment to the law of libel, and to treat such muck-raking as something which could not be justified. But that is a separate question and I am here on the more limited question: is it right to bring in a conviction for any criminal offence anywhere in the world? Are we not setting our sights too high? I ask that for this reason: the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made no reference (as I did) to the people who will really be affected by this Bill, in other words, the people who really want to comply with its provisions. Surely in passing a Bill of this kind we must have some regard to that, and to the possibility that people who really have acted perfectly innocently and have done their best to comply with the requirements may find themselves in serious trouble because of the complexities of this measure and because they have ascribed the wrong rehabilitation period for a conviction and sentence which has been imposed abroad.
When one looks at Clause 5, which contains the Table, one sees a five-year rehabilitation period for any other sentence, and so in respect of each foreign offence there must be at least a five-year period. But when one comes on to deal with the question of whether or rot a rehabilitation period should be extended in respect of someone who has been convicted, and considers the case cited by the noble and learned Lord of the man who had gone to Australia and lived a life of crime there and who should not be able to come back here and say, "I am rehabilitated and am an honest person ", of course, one agrees with him. But that is a different issue from the one now before the Committee and, if I may say so with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, his observations on that are really unrelated to this Amendment.
1340
I think, as a general observation, it is a criticism of this Bill—and I believe it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, earlier—that it tries to do too much and tries to be too technical. If we are to achieve a useful purpose, we must seek to clarify and define, and it may be to some extent limit, the scope of its provisions.
I feel quite unrepentant about this Amendment and unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, can give me further assurances I feel there is no oher course open to me but to ask the Committee to divide on it.
12.19 p.m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: It takes some courage to stand up here in what I may call a "den of lawyers", but I speak as a member of the Faulks Committee on Defamation, which has paid a tremendous amount of attention to all the clauses of the Bill in its original form and also to the pamphlet Living it Down, which gave rise to it. I have permission to speak on behalf of that Committee, whose Report should be in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate next week. We felt so strongly about the provisions of this Bill that our Committee put out an interim Report dealing with it, as your Lordships may be aware.
Its purpose may be summed up in paragraph 8, and I shall read from that:
" In principle we view with disfavour the creation by this Bill of a special class of person about whom the truth cannot safely be told after a specified period. We think it in the public interest that truth should at all times remain a defence for actions for defamation. It is in our view wrong in principle that a man about whom the truth is told should be entitled to damages on that account. Where it is unfair and not in the public interest to tell the truth about a person, the publisher, in its broadest sense, can be charged with criminal libel."
Many objections have been raised in the Press lately, as noble Lords will have seen. Some came to light even after the debate in another place. We are not out to protect the muck raker, but we are concerned at some of the anomalies in the cases which the Bill does not cover. I will quote again one which I quoted to your Lordships in the last debate. A man convicted of indecency who was applying for a job in connection with a boys' club—
LORD GARDINER: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, but I am not clear what relevance this has to the Amendment before the Committee. It seems to me to be more a Second Reading speech.
LORD BALLANTRAE: That is a fan-criticism and I accept it. It is very hard to know at what stage one can make these general observations which apply in some degree or another to all the clauses in the Bill. I stand corrected and am prepared to sit down.
LORD SALMON: May I return to the Amendment to omit paragraph (a)? I am in some difficulty, because if the object of that paragraph is to deal with the case that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has mentioned, of a man who a long time ago committed a comparatively minor crime in this country being rehabilitated after subsequently leading a life of high crime, as he put it, in Australia, I should have thought it was immaterial and unnecessary. The crime he committed 15 years ago would be small compared with a life of high crime in Australia and hardly worth mentioning in any event. The crimes he committed in Australia could be mentioned. The clause as it stands means what I regard as a serious mischief, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred. If we cut this clause out of the Bill for the reasons which he gave there would be the chance of some young man who had committed a crime having it dragged up against him later in life. That would do him just as much harm as if a crime he committed in this country was dragged up against him. It is no good saying that this can be dealt with under the law of libel. It is dealt with in this paragraph and Clause 8 brings that into the law of libel. But it will not bring it into the law of libel if we knock out paragraph (a).
LORD KENNET: Before the Minister rises, may I ask a question of fact or interpretation which will affect the way I vote if this Amendment goes to a Division? What about a secret trial abroad? Let us imagine that a man has come to this country and he used to be a member of the Red Army of the Soviet Union or, indeed, of the Ugandan Army, and let us suppose that it is alleged that he was convicted and sentenced for a
1342
crime while he belonged to one of those armies. It is likely that the trial would have taken place in secret, the charge would have been secret and the sentence would have been secret. Nevertheless, it is alleged. I am thinking of the possible effect in this country both ways round—that is to say, should this alleged fact prolong the period of his rehabilitation or, the other way round, should the truth of the alleged fact come into question in a case where he is suing for defamation? Are there not plenty of cases not only in the armed forces of other countries, but also in some civil courts in other countries, where, either by design or intent of their legal system, it would be impossible to find out the truth of the matter? Therefore, my question to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is: What is likely to happen in such an event?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is a well-known book which has just been published called the Gulag Archipelago. That is absolutely full of this sort of thing. Would Mr. Solzhenitsyn be subject to libel if he came to this country?
LORD GARDINER: My difficulty is that to become a rehabilitated person you must first have been convicted. Secondly, you must have been sentenced. The effective rehabilitation period is dealt with in Clause 5. There is a subsection in Clause 5 which became known in the House of Commons as the "Solzhenitsyn clause" and it was put in for a very good reason. If there is no conviction within the meaning of the Bill, then that case is altogether outside the Bill. The effect on sentence comes later in the Bill and we can discuss that when we get to it. The sole effect of carrying this Amendment is to take any overseas conviction out of the Bill for any purposes and, for the reasons which I have ventured to give, that obviously cannot be right.
LORD GOODMAN: I am anxious to make an appeal, both to the noble and learned Viscount who is moving the Amendment and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. They deploy such remarkable powers of eloquence and dialectic that they could hold us fascinated in a discussion about how many holes there should be in a Gruyere cheese. I suggest that this Amendment is not important in relation to the Bill. There are some important points which arise

1343
later, due possibly to the draftsmanship of the Bill. There are certain misconceptions. If we argue a point of this sort in extenso we could be here for months. I do not think there will be many cases where we shall be involved in complicated arguments in the courts about a gentleman who has led a life of high crime in Australia, has come to England and is considering whether or not he should be rehabilitated. In such an eventuality I would recommend him to go to a third country. My firm conviction is that without an Amendment either of these gentlemen could withdraw their positions and no great harm would come to the common realm.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): In the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, may I say that this is a matter on which I hope the Committee may feel it possible to come to a conclusion fairly soon, given the amount of business we still have before us. This proposal was in Lord Gardiner's Bill when it previously came to your Lordships' House. The question is this. Why should an ex-offender run the risk of having his old convictions raked up against him, simply because they took place in another country? That is the point on which we shall have to make a determination.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to the Minister who has just spoken. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was present when I made my speech, but I did not raise this question about the Australian. I raised the question of Watergate and the convictions that took place there, and the effect on those who
want to publish books, plays or things of that kind. There has been no reply at all.
The instance given by my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon of the youth who had a conviction abroad, and who had been protected in later years, would be very unlikely to arise. The Minister is not right in saying that the earlier Bill in terms applied to convictions in courts throughout the world. I looked at the copy of it which last left this House in its final stage, and that certainly was not readily apparent, as this is. This sets the framework. I am not going to repeat anything that I said but it is an important provision because it affects the scope of people's liability under Clause 8.
One can give this exact example. A book is written about the conviction of one of those who have already been convicted over the Watergate affair. In wanting to write that book one might have great difficulty in finding out whether in that book one may make any reference at all to any of those convictions which have been part and parcel of that affair. If this was going to be an easy task for someone to determine I should not feel so concerned about it. But here, as the Bill is drawn, it is quite impossible. This provision would have an extremely far-reaching effect, and I myself do not think the risk of one young man's having a foreign conviction brought to light in years to come is such as to warrant extending the scope of this Bill not only in respect of the period of rehabilitation but regarding the scope of this Bill to cover all foreign convictions.
12.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 45; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Pearson, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Effingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Barnby, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gainford, L.

St. Just, L.

Bethell, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Hayter, L,

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kennet, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lincoln, Bp.

Sempill, Lv.

Cowley, E.

Lyell, L.

Shannon, E.

de Clifford, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Strathspey, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Diplock, L. [Teller].

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hale, L.

Samuel, V.

Amherst, L.

Henley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archibald, L.

Hertford, M.

Seear, B.

Arwyn, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, B. ([Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Shepherd, L. (Lord Privy Seal.).

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sinclair of Cleeve.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Caradon, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Castle, L.

Melchett, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Norwich, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Teviot, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. [L. Chancellor.]

Pargiter, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Rea, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

12.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Viscount said: Amendment No. 2 again is on the scope of the Bill. This is a probing Amendment. I do not myself understand—I am sure it is my fault—the reasons for a provision which strikes me as somewhat curious. The Committee will see that in this Bill references to convictions include references
" to a verdict that a person charged with an offence is not guilty by reason of insanity ".
It strikes me as odd that a person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity should be required to have a rehabilitation period at all. Such a finding by a court is usually followed by an order that the person should be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. The Bill provides, if I see it aright, for a rehabilitation period of five years from the date of such a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, or two years from his release from hospital, whichever is the longer. After that it is a spent conviction to which reference must not be made and which the convicted person need not disclose.
In criminal cases and in social inquiry reports in relation to criminal cases it may be of extreme value to know of any mental defect in the past. This particular provision, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would say, does not affect criminal proceedings at all. The same information about mental breakdown seems to me to be something which may be of extreme value in other
1346
fields—in the individuals concerned perhaps as much as anything. And it is of value not only for the individual. Supposing that somebody has had the misfortune to have had such a finding against him—" not guilty by reason of insanity "—are we going to stop an employer inquiring about that and being told about that? It may be very relevant in finding a suitable type of employment for him. Again I doubt whether it is wise to make this Bill so extensive as to treat convictions for this purpose of persons who have been found "not guilty by reason of insanity ", and to attach to such persons a rehabilitation period of a somewhat varying length.
I feel doubt about the propriety of this and I shall be interested to hear what the reasons are that have led the noble Lord so to define the word "conviction". If you are dealing with what the noble Lord referred to last time when I moved an Amendment dealing only with the provisions of Clause 1 and if you go on to consider a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity after the man has previously been convicted, whether that should extend the rehabilitation period following upon the first conviction seems to me to be very doubtful.
As I understand the Bill, it would have this effect. A man is convicted for some offence which has, say, a five-year rehabilitation period, and during those five years he is charged with another offence in respect of which he is found not guilty by reason of insanity. As I understand the Bill, the effect would be that the rehabilitation period for the original offence would be extended. I am not at all sure whether that is right. I am not at all happy about this provision, but I move it in the hope that the noble Lord will be able to allay my anxiety.
LORD GARDINER: I suspect that my noble friend Lord Harris of the Home Office can deal with this better than me. All I would say is that we still have to draw a distinction in order to realise that this clause is dealing only with what is a conviction for the purpose of the Bill. A later clause deals with what is a sentence for the purposes of the Bill. What is the effect of all this? Up to about 1905 (I have not checked it, for the reasons which I mentioned previously) there was a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity because English law has always taken the view that you cannot have a guilty mind if you are insane; we do not punish people because they are ill. Then in about 1905 a man fired a revolver at Queen Victoria and when Queen Victoria asked the Prime Minister what the verdict was likely to be she was told: "Not guilty on the ground of insanity".
LORD HALE: It was earlier than 1905.
LORD GARDINER: Yes, it must have been earlier than that. She said that she was not having that and the verdict must start with the word "Guilty"; land nothing that the Prime Minister could say could persuade her to the contrary. Therefore the law had to be changed and a sentence introduced which was a nonsense to a lawyer—" Guilty but insane ". Then a Committee of Lord Atkins in the 1920s pointed out that it was some time since Queen Victoria had died and that this ought to be changed back. We owe it entirely to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that after about fifty years it was changed back again. In this Bill we have to deal with sentences which no longer exist, because we are dealing with past sentences. We have to provide for corrective training and various things which do not exist now.
What the draftsman has done here is to include "not guilty by reason of insanity" as a conviction. Then, when it comes to its effect, it is provided in Clause 5(1) that:
" (1) The sentences excluded from rehabilitation under this Act are—…
"(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life;…".
Obviously it is because it is the equivalent of more than two and a half years. Therefore what the draftsman is doing—I
1348
believe that this is sometimes called "yoyo drafting"—is putting it in as a conviction and then making it plain that the sentence is not one which is capable of being rehabilitated.
If there were some other sentence—and here perhaps my noble friend Lord Harris can help us—nobody, in my experience, ever pleads insanity in a small crime because you do not want your client to go to Broadmoor. If somebody did, it may be that some order could be made. It may be that in some cases a hospital order could be made. However, provision is made in the Bill for what is to be the rehabilitation period if it is for life or for a sentence during Her Majesty's pleasure and there is no rehabilitation. If there is a hospital order, then, following advice given to us by the late Lord Chief Justice—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that the noble and learned Lord is inaccurate. If he would turn to page 7 of the Bill and subsection (7) he will see there:
" Where in respect of a conviction any of the following orders was made, that is to say—…
(b) an order for detention during Her Majesty's pleasure under Section 88 of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act 1857, Section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883…".
I think that law was altered to conform with the wishes of Queen Victoria. Then it goes on to say:
"… the rehabilitation period … shall be the period of five years from the date of conviction or a period beginning with that date and ending two years after the date on which the hospital order or the order for detention, or for detention in or admission to hospital, ceases or ceased to have effect, whichever is the longer ".
In the light of those provisions, I cannot think that the noble and learned Lord is right when he says that there is no rehabilitation period following upon a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity which is followed by an order for detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. That was the case to which I was referring.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: The view of the Government is that it is necessary to have a provision on these lines so as to enable a person in respect of whom such a finding is made, to be rehabilitated. These findings which we are now discussing that, in fact, quite serious. They involve the admission of the accused

1349
person by order of the court to a hospital specified by the Secretary of State under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 and his detention there as if he were subject to a hospital order with restrictions on his discharge.
Clause 5(7)(c) of the Bill provides a rehabilitation period in respect of such a finding of five years, or two years after the order ceases to have effect, whichever is the longer. I am not sure why the noble and learned Viscount wishes to take these particular findings out of the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that they are not convictions in law, except, of course, for the purposes of this Bill, but the same is true of a number of other disposals which the court might make, such as absolute and conditional discharges, and indeed no Amendments have been tabled in respect of these. In order to assist the process of rehabilitation I think this process is the right one and I commend it to your Lordships.
LORD SALMON: I have never known of a plea of insanity except on a charge of murder. Insasmuch as life imprisonment is given for an offence outside the Act and rehabilitation cannot apply to it, if in lieu of life imprisonment a man is ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure because he is insane, then I am bound to say that it seems to me rather illogical to make that a conviction and sentence in respect of which you can rehabilitate. I cannot believe that this Amendment would cause any grave injustice if it were carried, much as I support the Bill in general.
LORD GOODMAN: Supporting the Bill in general, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, says he does, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, might consider whether in principle it is not entirely inappropriate to introduce considerations of insanity into the Bill. The whole principle of the Bill is that a man exercising normal powers of self-will, restraint and discipline, having gone straight for a number of years is then enabled to rehabilitate himself because he has shown that he has gone straight and has exercised those powers of self-will and restraint which have enabled him to do so. Here is a case where it is accepted that a man, when he committed his offence, had no degree of self-control that would
1350
enable those principles to be brought into consideration.
It seems to me quite wrong that even the most benevolent cloak of concealment should be brought around questions of insanity which may be germane to a number of considerations. For instance what does a man do (and I do not know what the Act says on this question) when he has to fill in the details of an insurance form? Perhaps he is a man who has committed arson, because we know that arson is an offence that is often committed by people who have mental disorders. What does he do in relation to filling in that form, and how do you see justice as between him and the insurance company?
It seems to me that this is a case where the principle of the Bill does not call for any benevolence of this kind. It calls for benevolence of quite a different character; it calls for a recognition that a man suffering from mental disorders should receive a very special kind of benevolent treatment but not this type of benevolent concealment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: There is another case which, in my view, deserves consideration. It is not so long ago since there occurred an incident in which a man who was employed in a works poisoned some of his fellow workmen, and he had not intimated to the employer that he had been guilty of such conduct before. I do not know whether he had been convicted for it but he had committed a similar offence before.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, he had been convicted.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: He had been convicted, but the employer did not know anything about it, his workmen became ill, nobody suspected the reason for it, and it was a very serious matter. To rehabilitate somebody, in the sense of this Bill, so that no mention shall ever be made when it is found that he is mentally deranged, is extremely serious, because nobody can guarantee that such mental derangement does not still continue.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I should misread his Bill—or at least one of us should—but I suspect that on this occasion I am right. He said

1351
that, in respect of a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, the Bill provided that there should be no rehabilitation period. He relied on Clause 5(1)(d), which says:
" The sentences excluded from rehabilitation under this Act are—
(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life, or for a term exceeding thirty months, passed under"
specified Acts and it only applies to sentences passed under those Acts.
In subsection (7), it says,
" Where in respect of a conviction any of the following orders was made ".
Then it says under:
" (b) an order for detention during Her Majesty's pleasure under … Section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 "—
there shall be a period of rehabilitation. I think that when a person is found guilty but insane on, perhaps a charge of murder, the order for detention during Her Majesty's pleasure is made under Section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883. Therefore, I feel confident (although I may be wrong) that in this respect I am right about this Bill and the noble and learned Lord happens to have erred, no doubt because he has been pressed and it is a very complicated Bill to find one's way about. I make no complaint about it, but I come back to the question which bothers me a great deal, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has referred to it.
The question is whether, where there is insanity, this Bill should apply at all. If a man is detained during Her Majesty's pleasure presumably he will not be released until he is fit to go about in society. At the same time, might it not be desirable that the medical profession, for instance, should be able to find out about his full background? We are not dealing here simply with criminal trials and what is brought to the notice of a criminal court. Am I not right in thinking that, if the Bill applies to him and he has gone through the rehabilitation period since the order was made for his detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, the medical profession and others who have a legitimate interest. in finding out about what would otherwise be a spent conviction will be inhibited in that respect and may under this Bill be misled by the person himself who will be able to answer a question about a spent conviction without
1352
disclosing it? May not that have rather serious consequences?
I am seriously worried about the Bill. Unless the Committee think it right, I do not wish to press this Amendment. I am inclined to think that the Bill would be better without it, and I am inclined, with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch, to think that it should not touch upon insanity, but rather that we should leave the poor unfortunate people who have suffered from insanity outwith the scope of this Bill. I do not think one could possibly call this a wrecking Amendment. It may require a few consequential drafting alterations, but it is not designed to wreck; it is designed to try to secure an improvement in the Bill.
1.10 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I am quite prepared to consider this before the next stage. I sympathise with those who feel there is some possible conflict between Clause 5(1)(d) and Clause 5(7)(a). I regret that the references to the Scottish Act I am not in a position to deal with. The Parliamentary draftsman has naturally taken no instructions on that from the Scottish Office, but I shall be quite prepared to consider it again before the next stage. The only reason why I think she appeared to have included insanity as a conviction and then, in effect, took it out was that if she had not done so in the days of "guilty but insane", if some of those were still alive, that would obviously be a conviction, so she probably had to deal with it somehow. That may not be right, but I am quite prepared to consider the matter again.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said, but could he give an assurance that there will be a Report stage on this Bill? There will not be a Report stage. The noble and learned Lord said that he will consider it on the next stage, and I am very content with that if there is a next stage at which it can be adequately considered. That is what bothers me. This requires looking at in perhaps a little more depth. If the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that this does not come within the Bill at all, I am content. But if it does come within the Bill, then I am inclined to the view that it should come out. I am in a difficulty. I do not know whether the Government can help. I suppose this is the sort of Amendment one might

1353
move on Third Reading, but on Third Reading we do not usually deal with anything except pure technicalities. This is more than a pure technicality.
LORD FOOT: I am sorry, but I am very ignorant about these things. Why does the noble and learned Viscount suggest there may not be a Report stage?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am judging largely by the result of the last Division. I cannot think it likely. I have known my old friend, if I may call him so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for many years and he does not lightly accept Amendments. In the present state of this Bill and of Parliamentary Business, I assume, I hope incorrectly, that the noble and learned Lord will refuse to accept any Amendments. I may have done him an injustice, but that is very likely. That is the reason why I think it is unlikely there will be a Report stage.
LORD FOOT: In that event, although I am a wholehearted supporter of this Bill, may I say that I was impressed by one of the arguments addressed to us by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, which was that if a person is convicted of an ordinary offence and then has an attached rehabilitation period, and if during the course of that rehabilitation period he is then found not guilty on account of insanity, it is a serious matter that that should result in an extension of the period of rehabilitation. The gain of this clause as it stands is that a stigma attaches to a finding of not guilty on account of insanity. All humane people would like that person to have the opportunity of getting rid of the stigma by a period of rehabilitation. But I take the point about the seriousness of a finding of not guilty extending the period of rehabilitation. Therefore, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, whether he will give the most positive reassurance that he can to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on this matter, because as a result of what he said I, at any rate, am persuaded that this may be wrong.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: A possible solution has occurred to me. The noble and learned Lord argued that under the Bill as it stands there is no rehabilitation period in respect of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, followed by an order for detention during Her Majesty's
1354
pleasure. If I have understood that correctly and if that is his intention, then if the noble and learned Lord will give an assurance that he will himself table an Amendment to make that clear beyond all shadow of doubt I shall be perfectly content to withdraw this Amendment because it may be, if that is his intention, that there is really nothing between us.
LORD GARDINER: I cannot do that. What I have said is that I think there is some apparent conflict here. I think it ought to be considered further. I would not object to the noble and learned Vis-count, Lord Dilhorne, putting down an Amendment for Third Reading if there is no Report stage. The reason I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the noble and learned Viscount is that it assumes that if there is a period of rehabilitation at all, it ought to be of the kind that he requires. If the hospital order section applies to these cases, I would think it appropriate that the hospital order rehabilitation period should apply; that is to say, on merits. Once we have sorted out what is the real effect of the Bill as it stands, there may well be arguments. But I would raise no objection to the noble and learned Viscount putting down an Amendment on Report stage, if there is one, or if not, on Third Reading, because it is a point which deserves further consideration. I am not certain whether I am right in saying that these are taken out of the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If I may just make a point here, we have had a great deal of trouble with the drafting of this measure over a long period of time It is now of the greatest complexity. It has been done by the Parliamentary draftsmen, and if there is one thing that is absolutely certain it is that not even the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in conjunction with all the other noble and learned Lords who sit on the Cross Benches, are absolutely certain to get an Amendment which will be right. There is only one person able to do that, and that is the Parliamentary draftsman who has completely taken over this matter.
Therefore, if we are to rely on the noble and learned Law Lords to put down an Amendment on Third Reading—and that will be the last chance—it is very probable, with the greatest respect to them, that we shall not get it right.

1355
This is highly unsatisfactory. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, himself, with the assitance he has now been given, will take this on board and not put the onus on someone else.
LORD DIPLOCK: The Amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is prepared to consider just does not meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because if this is a conviction then, if you turn to Clause 6(4), you will find that it extends the period of rehabilitation for the previous offence. So we get to the position where someone has committed an offence for which there is a rehabilitation period of, say, seven years or five years; towards the end of that period, he commits an offence for which there is a hospital order, or a verdict of guilty but insane. That has the effect under the Bill as it stands of continuing the rehabilitation period, not for the insanity one but for the previous one, for another five years or, if this is an unrehabilitated one, it continues it for ever. No Amendment, deciding whether it goes into one or other of the categories—that is to say, Clause 5(1)(d) or 5(7)(b)—which I am myself quite clear it does, will affect that. More amendment is required to avoid the injustice to which the noble Lord. Lord Foot, referred.
LORD GARDINER: I have received a note from the Parliamentary draftsman who says that Clause 5(1)(d) was intended to apply only to children's cases, and that Clause 5(7)(a) would apply here.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am glad to find I have on this occasion some support from the Parliamentary draftsman, and I am grateful for it. I am bothered about this. I have said before, and I do so again because I am sincere about it, that I support the objective of this Bill. The only way to get out of this real difficulty is by having this Bill amended now if we can, so as to ensure that there is a Report stage. If we amend the Bill now in this respect, it will be possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with the aid of Parliamentary counsel, to draft appropriate Amendments if he thinks any other change is required.
1356
On a point about which I am glad for once Lord Foot agreed with me, I think it very desirable at the moment that we should take out all questions of insanity from the Bill. In order to let this matter be reconsidered, and properly considered, I think I must press this Amendment. If we have a Report stage, it might not take long to deal with this particular point, but I really think it is wrong, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, to leave me to put down Amendments at Third Reading, which I probably would not get right, and make it quite impossible to make any further adjustment. If the noble Lord put down Amendments at Third Reading, it would be very difficult for us to move Amendments to those Amendments or to make any change. Therefore, although I was not intending to ask the Committee to divide, in the light of the discussion I think I must press it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble and learned Viscount makes that decision, may I say this. I have been listening to part of the discussion, and heaven forbid! I do not intend to get among two Lord Chancellors and the other legal dignitaries we have here; looking around the House I wonder whether laymen fully appreciate the problem that is being debated. There is a considerable difficulty about time, not only in terms of to-day's Committee stage, but also the possible end of the Session. Since the noble and learned Viscount said that he supports the aims of the Bill, I will certainly undertake to see whether a Report stage could be provided, even if only a day before Third Reading. I, and I am sure, my noble friend from the Home Office, will certainly see whether we can arrange a meeting on this matter with Parliamentary draftsmen to see whether a solution can be hammered out to meet both sides. Perhaps by doing that we might save a Division, which I think would perhaps be undesirable. I will certainly see what we can do in terms of having a different stage, in order to have a look at it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I would welcome that. It means, if the noble Lord would do that, accepting this Amendment as it stands; otherwise, there might not be a Report stage at all.
LORD SHEPHERD: We do not necessarily have to say that because there are

1357
no Amendments there will be no Report stage. I will look into the question of whether we can arrange a Report stage. If the noble Viscount can agree, I will give an undertaking that there will be a Report stage.
LORD HALE: Would the noble Lord permit me to ask one question? I ask it very innocently, because I do not claim to be an expert on the Rules of the House. In the Commons it was quite possible to recommit on a single limited point. If the contenders on this point—with whom I have a great deal of sympathy, because I do not understand the Bill very clearly either—can come to an agreed conclusion, and if the House could be presented with an agreed conclusion, could not that be done by a formal Motion for Recommittal on the simple Amendment. Certainly it used to be done in the Commons. Will they also consider the fact that a great many people who are detained in penal hospital institutions have been found guilty by a jury, who do not like pleas of insanity very much generally speaking, and have been found to be insane on medical examination within the prison. I frankly do not know whether this is not raising a conflict between two quite special cases, which rather excludes the question of principle that was put.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I add one word following on what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said? If the noble Lord says, as I understand him to say, that there will be a Report stage or some other procedure, perhaps recommittal, to deal with this point, I am perfectly content. I think it has got to be dealt with and it is not satisfactory as it now stands in the Bill. The other suggestion I would make is that it might save considerable time if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would consult with those who have expressed concern about this matter, Lord Foot and myself. I would hope that we would be able to find an agreed solution on this particular issue and be able to bring it back to the House as something we could all jointly commend to the House, and take up no time at all.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will undertake to provide a Report stage for this Bill, but it must be on the understanding that it will provide an extra stage to the Bill. It may have to take place on the
1358
same day, if there is no other way. I will certainly do my best to see that there is a reasonable period between the two stages.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I know the noble Lord will give sufficient time for consultation to take place, because consultation is really an essential element if we are to short-circuit this. A Report stage may come in any event in view of what happens hereafter. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have not put down any Amendments with relation to the fines question. The noble and learned Lord touched on this in his Second Reading speech, but only very shortly. It strikes me as very odd that a person should be rehabilitated, and be allowed to be rehabilitated, even though he has not paid his fine. We are encouraging courts to impose fines rather than imprisonment, and I welcome that, but I think we should be very reluctant to do anything which might encourage people to think they can get away with impunity with the non-payment of fines.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in a letter he wrote to The Times—a very skilful and persuasive letter—was that this Bill was intended to help people who had paid their debt to society. Of course, those observations cannot apply to people who have been fined and have not paid their debts. I would ask the noble Lord to explain, if he could, a little more fully than he did on Second Reading, why he has changed his attitude with regard to this from the time when he spoke on the other Bill. Then he said you ought not to extend the merciful provisions of this Bill to those who have not done what the courts have ordered them to do; to those who have not paid their fines, who have not paid their debts. I thought the noble Lord was extremely persuasive and convincing in the speech he then made, as he always is. Now we find that position completely reversed in the present Bill.

1359
I can quite see that there may be difficulty in finding out whether a fine was paid by the date it was ordered to be paid. I am not concerned about that; it may be paid late. But surely it should be possible to find out, without any more difficulty than finding out about other sentences and convictions, whether in fact the fine has been paid. I quite see that different considerations may apply, where you have a man put on probation subject to conditions, in establishing whether or not there has been a breach of those conditions. I have not tabled an Amendment about fines; I thought I had tabled sufficient Amendments. But I would still be very interested indeed if the noble Lord could explain, and if he could justify this complete reversal of the policy adumbrated in the Bill introduced into this House last session.
LORD GARDINER: Everything the noble and learned Viscount has said about what happened in this House is quite right. I always took the view that if there was a fine the rehabilitation period should not start to run until the line had been paid. I thought that that would have a good effect, apart from anything else—I remember saying this to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—on giving people incentive to pay their fines. I cannot tell the noble Viscount very much about why this was taken out. It may be that my noble friend Lord Harris can say more about it. I understand that it was taken out simply on the strong advice of the Government, in particular the Home Office—and Private Members' Bills have to pay some attention to Government views—that the administrative work involved really would not make it worth while. All magistrates' courts records are not perfect. Finding out whether or not somebody has paid a fine or, if the order was one under which he had to pay by instalments, finding out whether he is in arrears of the instalments, and so on, they said, as I understand it, may be right in principle, but it is not worth it in practice. If my noble friend Lord Harris can add to that at all, no doubt he will.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that he is waiting for instructions. May I put this thought to him: I am not concerned about what I call magistrates'
1360
courts' fines, I am concerned about the substantial fines imposed at circuit courts, the Central Criminal Court, and in the superior criminal court. I should have thought that it was fairly easy to check from the records whether those fines have, or have not, been paid. I may be wrong.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This may be an extra point for the Government. May I ask whether this is really right because, although I understand the administrative difficulty, I am at one with both noble and learned Lords who have spoken that we ought not to have rehabilitation unless the fine has been paid. In practice, in a defamation action, for instance, the case is started by the person who says he has been rehabilitated. If he starts an action for defamation on the grounds that he has been fined and the period of five years has expired, and it turns out after all that he has not paid the fine, under the Bill as it stands he is going to win. If we change this provision and make it a requirement that he shall have paid the fine, and that the five years can run from the date of its being imposed, then it will be impossible for him with any success to bring a defamation action unless he has actually paid the fine.
It would seem to be very worth while reconsidering whether we ought not to put this provision back in. It may not get over the whole of the difficulty under Clause 9, although, as a matter of fact, it probably would because the Director of Public Prosecutions, when considering whether to authorise a prosecution under Clause 9, would, in that one instance, be able to discover whether or not the fine had been paid. Therefore, in both cases the teeth of this Bill, either the civil action for defamation or the criminal prosecution under Clause 9, would never go ahead at all if the fine had not been paid. Therefore, we can, without any undue difficulty, restore the situation to that which both noble and learned Lords wish to see.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: The noble and learned Viscount correctly took the view that I required some instruction on this particular point. As I see it, under the Bill the fine can in fact still be collected even when the conviction has been spent. So there is no risk of this sort so far as this particular proposal is concerned. The point that my noble

1361
and learned friend raises has some validity. Quite a high proportion of fines are paid by instalments. Offhand I cannot give any proportion of fines treated in this way, but it would create very substantial administrative work for court staffs, and this is why the Government took the view they did in another place when this matter was discussed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: This is one of the matters upon which it would have been useful to have a discussion. I am not concerned with small fines, but the fines which are really in lieu of imprisonment, which I think ought to be paid before a man can be rehabilitated. Your chance of getting repayment after rehabilitation may be diminished. I do not know whether we could have a talk about this also before the third stage and come to a conclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I were initially in agreement about this. It may require some slight adjustment which should not take up much time, and I will not take any more time on this at the moment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings]:
1.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) For the purposes of this Act a conviction by a court-martial of an offence which is also an offence under the criminal law shall, if a sentence of imprisonment was imposed in respect thereof, be treated as a conviction and the sentence so imposed as a sentence.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: I think that we can usefully discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together, and that very little need be said about Amendment No. 4 because that raises again the insanity question which we have already discussed. Whatever is done about that will depend upon the result of our discussions on what takes place on Report The Amendment to leave out Clause 2(1) raises a question of considerable import ance. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not here when we are about to discuss certain provisions of the Army Act, in the formulation of which I think he had considerable responsibility.
Your Lordships will see in subsection (1)—
"any finding that a person is guilty of an offence in respect of any act or omission which was the subject of service disciplinary proceedings shall be treated as a conviction and any punishment awarded or order made in respect of any such finding shall be treated as a sentence."
At the end of the Table in the Bill it says that for a fine or any sentence subject to rehabilitation the period is five years. If a man is sentenced to detention, then, under the Bill, he has to have a seven year rehabilitation period; if he is sentenced to anything less than detention, a five years' rehabilitation period.
One thing about this Bill is clear, that any conviction of a service offence comes within the scope of this Bill, whether or not it is a summary conviction by his commanding officer, or the captain of a ship, or whether it is a conviction by court-martial. I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor is not here. He had at one time, with me, considerable experience in having to deal with military law. I would ask the Committee to consider for a moment the scope of this provision. If a man overstays his leave he could be charged with absence without leave; if he is convicted, the five year rehabilitation period, or seven years if sentenced to detention, and the detention may be imposed for a wide variety of military offences.
If I may, I will give a few examples. Section 28, a soldier found to have been captured by the enemy as a result of disobedience to orders or wilful neglect of duty. Section 29, while on guard duty, when not on duty at a post, is alseep at a time when he is not allowed to be asleep; if convicted for that, a five or seven years rehabilitation period. Section 33, using insubordinate language to a superior officer—a private soldier to an N.C.O. Section 36, disobedience to standing orders. Section 41, without reasonable excuse failing to attend a parade. Section 43. drunkenness. Those are instances of military offences.
I submit to the Committee that it is really wrong that this Bill should extend to purely military offences, unless the military offence charged is an offence against the ordinary criminal law of this country. If it is, and a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, then the Bill

1363
should bite. Under Section 70 of the Army Act people are charged with committing a civil offence which is a criminal offence under our ordinary law. I would make it possible to bring in those offences thereby drawing a line, which may not be a perfect line but which is clear, between military offences and offences of a criminal character. After all, any conviction for any military offence no matter by whom it is made, whether by court-martial or by a commanding officer, is at the moment within the Bill. I do not think it should be.
Looking at the matter in a little more detail, I suppose that in the absence of a sentence of imprisonment, which I agree might be damaging if brought out in later years, the one sentence which destroys a man's reputation, if brought to light again in later years, is the sentence of cashiering. Cashiering is excluded from the operation of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, during wartime when one had to deal with cashiering cases it was nearly always a matter of passing dud cheques which, if tried by ordinary courts, would carry a period of rehabilitation.
I think it would be better to leave all Service offences outside the scope of the Bill, except those where a man is charged with committing an offence under the criminal law. Bring those in, but do not spread the net so wide as to bring in all courts-martial and things of that sort. I cannot see the case for it. I beg to move.
1.42 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: If I say I have some sympathy with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, he may on reflection think he has been wrong in everything he has said. I must candidly say that I see some force in his arguments. The effect of his three Amendments, as I interpret them, would be to substitute his own first Amendment for the whole of the clause, because he intends to delete the other subsections of the clause.
On Second Reading, we were told that the Lord Chief Justice would be issuing some practice notes for the guidance of the courts. Whether those practice notes would also cover courts-martial and military law, I do not know. But I think
1364
such practice notes should be issued for the guidance of the military by such an outsider as the Lord Chief Justice or some high authority in the Ministry of Defence, because Clause 2, as it now stands, says that a man's record shall contain details of any punishments awarded by court-martial or by any authorised person, and that these shall be shown as convictions. So far as court-martial sentences are concerned that is perfectly proper, because they will have been fairly serious offences, probably the kind that would go to a Crown Court, or a higher court, in civilian life. But the term "authorised persons" can include the company officer, who may on occasions be a junior subaltern, who will be dealing with minor and' technical military offences at every morning's "jankers" parade.
If I may cast my mind back more than half-a-century to the day when I was a young and modest company sergeant-major, I once put a man on the peg for being drunk. I acted similarly with a man who showed a light in his billet in a barn just behind the River Somme; another for flogging rations to a young French widow who lived on the outskirts of the town. I felt very mean when I fined one of my sergeants for being a day late returning from his leave in England. Those crimes—"crime" was the word we always used—used to follow a man on his conduct sheet all through his military career. But it seems unfair that those entries should follow him into civilian life as well. For that reason I have sympathy with the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment. Whether it is necessary to incorporate the Amendment into the Bill, or whether we can deal with it under the Lord Chief Justice's practice notes I do not know. I am prepared to listen to whatever course the noble and learned Viscount might suggest.
LORD FOOT: With the greatest possible deference and uncertainty might I say that in my view the noble and learned Viscount has misapprehended the effect of his Amendment. If I understand the clause right, what the Bill sets out to do, first, is to define what is a conviction before the ordinary courts. The reason why we want to define what amounts to a conviction before ordinary courts is that we want to identify those cases where

1365
a person will be capable of rehabilitating himself.
As I read Clause 2, what that is trying to do is to set out what amounts to a conviction for which a person can rehabilitate himself. It includes all proceedings before a court-martial, or indeed before some subordinate military tribunal, comparable to the proceedings before our courts either on judgment or summary. What would be the result—if I am right about it—of accepting the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment? Would it not make it impossible for a person who was convicted of not attending a parade, or a person who was convicted of some silly, trifling offence, ever to be rehabilitated from that offence? If I am right about that, and if Clause 2 means what I think it means, then surely if the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is carried the following offences would never be rehabilitatable.
The first category would be military offences which were also civil offences, but which were not dealt with by court-martial. The second category would be military offences which were not civil offences and which were dealt with by court-martial. The third category would be military offences which were civil offences but which were dealt with by court-martial and did not lead to imprisonment—because the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment says, in effect, "Oh, no! The only thing that counts as a conviction is something that carries with it a sentence of imprisonment." I cannot believe that that is the noble and learned Viscount's intention: that where you are convicted of a serious offence you should then be capable of rehabilitating yourself from it. But where you are convicted before a military tribunal of some trifling offence you should never be able to be rehabilitated at all.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I can answer the noble Lord in one sentence. About 50 years ago I was convicted, I must confess it, of riding a motor-cycle without lights. I have never found any need to rehabilitate myself from that conviction. If you are going to bring into the net all these minor, purely military offences, and say that there must be a period of rehabilitation of five years from each, you are making a nonsense of the Bill.
LORD FOOT: What we are doing under the Bill rightly or wrongly, is providing that even in the case of a person being give an absolute discharge, or a conditional discharge, or being found guilty of any kind of summary offence and having a small fine imposed, he should be able to rehabilitate himself and have that wiped out after a period of six months. Why in the world should we not adopt exactly the same principle in the case of minor offences committed in the Army, Navy or Air Force so that a person has the opportunity of having his conviction wiped off the record after a period of six months? Why should we deny him that? I suggest that is what the Amendment of the noble Viscount clearly does. It surely creates the absurd situation that, if you commit a serious Offence under military or naval law then you can in the course of time have it wiped out, but if you commit a minor offence it is there on your record forever. I suggest that that is what the Amendment the noble Viscount will, in fact, do.
LORD WIGG: I am responding to temptation, but I must again be perfectly frank about this. The reason why I have not previously spoken on this Bill is because I regard it as the most unutterable nonsense. This is another case (and this, it seems to me, runs through the age in which we live) in which people's bleeding hearts have run away with their bloody heads and they do not stop to see what the consequences of their actions are going to be.
Let us just ponder for a moment this clause in relation to military law. Suppose two men desert together and are then apprehended, and suppose they belong to different units. In one unit, the CO. remands the man for a summary of evidence, he is subsequently tried by court-martial and, on conviction, he forfeits all his service. That is quite automatic. In the other unit the C.O. does not remand him for a summary of evidence. He thinks about it; and, the man having subsequently confessed to desertion, his trial is dispensed with. His service is forfeited as well. As I understand this—and I do not need to tell the Committee that I am not a lawyer—under the first set-up, after a period of years the conviction would be washed out and the service restored, and presumably that would be the end of it. On the other

1367
hand, the second man, who has not been convicted by court-martial or convicted by any other person, would still have his service forfeited.
This is the kind of nonsense that comes about and destroys the discipline of the Armed Forces in democratic countries, because people who know nothing about it at all sit down to write some words and then do not do their homework and see where it will end up. So I hope very much, not that the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, will not be accepted: I hope that Lord Gardiner will agree to take Clause 2 away in its entirety and wring its neck, or at least have second thoughts.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, proposes in this and his other Amendments to Clause 2—and, if I may, I will deal with Amendments No. 3, 4 and 5 together here for the convenience of the Committee—that the benefits of the Bill should be extended to only a limited class of military cases: those where the conduct constituted an offence under the civilian law and where the sentence was one of imprisonment. I am not sure why the noble Viscount should think it necessary to deny the benefits of the Bill to the Serviceman who is dealt with in Service disciplinary proceedings for what in civilian life may be a minor criminal offence or no offence at all; or to the Serviceman who, rather than be imprisoned, is dismissed or otherwise dealt with. I understand, and indeed have some sympathy for, the view that it is unnecessary to cast the Bill's net so wide as to catch every minor disciplinary offence, but, in fact, we have to ask ourselves, I think: what on earth damage does this do?
Frankly, it is difficult to draw this provision more narrowly without leaving unprotected some deserving cases under the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount. The man who is court-martialled and sent to prison for a serious offence of violence may be rehabilitated, while the man otherwise dealt with for a lesser offence of the same kind would not. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to what the noble Viscount has said this afternoon, but I could certainly hold out no hope to the noble
1368
Viscount that my right honourable friend would wish to take a different view at any later stage of the Bill.
LORD WIGG: I wonder whether—
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: Perhaps I may just conclude this point. In addition to the exclusions which I have already mentioned, if this Amendment were carried, all offences tried summarily before a military tribunal would come out, and these would include such offences as the possession of drugs, minor theft, assault, drunkenness or fighting. In some cases, imprisonment might be awarded, but under this Amendment, the offence could still not be rehabilitated. I really do not know whether that is the wish of the noble and learned Viscount, but that is, in fact, what his Amendment states, and I very much hope that, with great respect, he will not press it.
LORD WIGG: Do I understand my noble friend to say that this Section of the Bill has not been considered by the Defence Department?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: No, I am sorry. I certainly did not say that. I think my noble friend misheard me. What I said was that I would draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to what the noble Viscount had said, but I could hold out no hope that he would change his view on the matter.
LORD WIGG: I should have thought that the points made by Lord Dilhorne would have been considered already by the Minister of Defence. May I also remind my noble friend, that under the procedure dealing with the Army Act, as to which Lord Dilhorne made kindly reference to myself, it was left that this was really a matter in which the Houses of Parliament as such were not particularly interested, and it was referred, I think every third year, to a Committee on Procedure for them to look at it. Heavens above!; here is a case where you are tampering with discipline—and for noble reasons. I am not suggesting for a moment that Lord Gardiner or anyone else who supports him wants to play around with the discipline in the Armed Forces, but I assure my noble friend that the effect of this clause will be just that. It will create absolute chaos in the odd case, not affected at the present moment, such as the instance I have mentioned

1369
where there is a forfeiture of service and the trial has been dispensed with. It will affect those cases where there is time promotion, when, so far as I can see, there must be no reference to a man's previous conviction and yet, in fact, his conviction will affect the whole of his military service. This is unutterable nonsense. It may be that we have entered a period in which our almost non-existent Armed Forces should operate in such a way, but if that is so there ought to be a declaration by the Government that that is their policy. In the meantime, I would have thought that the procedures that were enacted and were put into operation in 1952, and which have operated since, meant that one should not tamper with the Armed Forces of the Crown through the operations of the Army Act without being very careful about what one is doing.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry but, having listened with care to what the Minister has said about this, I am not in the least content. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I am afraid I cannot have made myself clear to him. I do not myself take the view that it is necessary to provide a rehabilitation
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
period in this Bill for every single minor, trumpery offence. Although it may be that the Amendment that I have tabled is imperfect in some respects—I expected that to be said; it always is—I still think that at the root it is right. I say it is right for reasons which have not been considered at all so far in this debate; namely, those concerning the position of people who, by reason of these provisions, are being debarred from doing what they are now permitted to do. They are the people who would be exposed to actions for libel because, years after the event, in a book dealing with someone's past history, they referred to a conviction for absence without leave. I think I am right in saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, had made his observations outside this Committee he might have exposed himself to considerable risk if this Bill had been the law. I am afraid I must press this Amendment.
2.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Reigate, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Elton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L

Cathcart, E.

Gowrie, E.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cowley, E.

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wigg, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Diplock, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

McLeavy, L.

Archibald, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ogmore, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Caradon, L.

Hertford, M.

Seear, B.

Castle, L.

Jacques. L.

Segal, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, B. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Lovel-Davies, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

2.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved:
Page 2, line 49, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
LORD GARDINER: I do not wish to take up the Committee's time about this, but I think that I ought to explain that the expression "service disciplinary proceedings", which is defined by the part of the clause proposed to be left out, is used in Clause 5(2) Table A, Clause 5(8), Clause 6(7) and Clause 7(2)(b). Only the first two of these are sought to be omitted by the other Amendments and the expression would therefore not be defined for the purposes of the other two. I would have thought therefore that the definition ought to remain.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Further consequential Amendments may have to be made. I may well have missed some. But I think this should be deleted. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is wrong. I have subsequent Amendments down to delete a lot of the court-martial provisions but we can always look at those on Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: When I was listening to the debate on the last Amendment I had a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about the very insignificant offences which. under the Amendment as it stands, would have to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that he was going to take this mater back to his right honourable friend the Minister of Defence. He could not promise any very great change; but in fact he has now got one and he is therefore going to have to take it back and ask the Minister of Defence or the expert advisers how this is to go ahead. I am quite sure that any of us on this side of the House will be prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions put forward by the Minister, and if in the process they happen
1372
to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it may be all to the good. There would be no harm in doing it that way; and now that we have an opportunity to do it I very much hope that if there was any reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Defence to consider this matter it will now be overcome and that the noble Lord will take the matter really seriously and give us the result of their fully considered opinion at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LEATHERLAND: In view of what has been said not only by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I hope that if a clause comes to be drafted or if some practice notes are issued by the Lord Chief Justice or the Minister of Defence, it is made perfectly clear that pettyfogging little offences of a military kind do not follow the soldier or Serviceman into civilian life.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Effect of rehabilitation]:
2.13 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 45, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 of the Bill is one of great importance and it is one which has the sympathy of all of us in that it is designed to prevent references to spent convictions taking place in courts or in other tribunals. The theory is splendid, but the practice of it, as suggested here, fills me with the greatest of foreboding when one is considering what would happen in court as a result. Clause 4(1) provides that:
" (a) no evidence tending to prove the contrary shall be received by any court or other judicial authority, …
(b) a person shall not … be asked … any question.…
The first thing to notice is that this does not apply to criminal proceedings at all because those are excluded from the effect of this clause by subsection 2(a). So it applies only to civil proceedings.
May I concentrate for the moment on proceedings in a court of law, because there at least one has some control over the procedure; one knows what the Rules of Evidence are. In civil proceedings in a court, previous convictions, whether spent or not, would not be admissible except in two possible cases, the first being in cross-examination of a party or witness to credit; that is dealt with by (b). The only other circumstances in which convictions spent or not spent, would be relevant, would be if they were relevant to an issue in the case. If they are relevant to an issue in the case, then Clause 7(3) permits the evidence to be given.
Paragraph (a), so far as proceedings in a court of law are concerned, is unnecessary to protect rehabilitated persons against their convictions being referred to in court in civil proceedings, which is all that this applies to. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is, in my submission, positively harmful, because it is unworkable in the way cases are tried and come up in the court in civil proceedings. Remember that the reference to the conviction or the facts underlying it is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the case; that is to say, that that evidence is necessary to do justice between the parties. So while the action is proceeding counsel has to submit to the judge that the evidence of a spent conviction is necessary to do justice to the party. The judge, until he has been told what the spent convictions are, and may be all the details about it, cannot decide whether or not it is admissible. If he rules that it is irrelevant, no doubt he will do his best to dismiss it from his mind. But he would have done that even if the evidence had been brought out.
This kind of provision about no evidence being tendered, or making evidence inadmissible, is based upon a jury trial. There it works, because the jury is the judge of facts and the judge makes rulings of law; he does not decide the facts. But, except in defamation actions, the jury has practically disappeared from civil litigation in this country. As I say, it works in jury trials because there is what is called a trial within a trial. It takes a lot of time; the jury is sent out; the matter is then argued before the judge and he rules whether or not it is admissible. If he
1374
rules it admissible the jury comes back and listens to it; if he rules it inadmissible the jury never hears it. That does not really make sense when it is a trial by judge alone.
I have spoken about courts, but if you look at subsection (5) you will see that "judicial authority"—and this applies to proceedings before judicial authority—is extremely widely defined, particularly in paragraphs (b) and (c). It includes any tribunal, body or person having power. Paragraph (b) deals with what are, in effect, statutory tribunals, which might include the Benches of the Inns of Court, and states:
" (b) under the rules governing any association, institution, profession, occupation or employment; or
(c) under any agreement or arrangement (express or implied) ".
The definition of "judicial authority", so far as I can see, covers such bodies as committees of trade unions, committees of working men's clubs and even myself when, in this year of my Office as Treasurer of the Middle Temple, I sometimes have to deal with offences by students. How can this kind of tribunal, or committee of a club, be expected to operate a procedure as complex as this one? They will not know about it, anyway. It applies only if the conviction is spent. How are they to find out whether or not it is spent? How can you, before that kind of tribunal, expect them to give a ruling as to whether or not it is admissible, and having decided that it is not admissible expect them to dismiss it from their minds? With great respect to the draftsman of the Bill, that makes nonsense of this procedure.
It does not stop there, because one must consider what is the remedy if the committee of the working man's club, or whatever body it is, makes a mistake. It hears about a spent conviction without knowing in advance that that is what it was going to hear about. What is the remedy? So far as I can see, the only remedy is to apply to the divisional court for a writ of certiorari to bring the decision up to be quashed, because the procedure laid down about admitting evi-evidence before that kind of tribunal had not been followed.
I ask your Lordships to pause for a moment and think what is the effect of the only remedy? It is to give the widest

1375
possible publicity to the spent conviction which is the cause of the order having to be quashed. What happens on the quashing? It goes back to the same body to hear it again, without the spent conviction being mentioned the second time around. To put this kind of complicated provision into the Bill when there is the safety of paragraph (b), which provides protection without causing difficulties, is to make the matter so complicated for ordinary human beings that it cannot be observed. If one is passing a law to say that something is unlawful, it ought to be something which people can reasonably know about and observe. I beg to move.
2.25 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: Subsection (4)(a) is, of course, the guts of the whole Bill. As we all knew from the very start, somebody had to decide what was to be the principle of the Bill. If people were to be prevented from bringing up other people's old convictions, there had to be some kind of sanction. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, there are very limited suggestions as to what this sanction should be. The only practical alternative to the fear that you might then be liable for damages in an action of defamation was to make such revelations a criminal offence.
It was that, primarily, that we considered on the Second Reading of the Bill 18 months ago, covering 84 columns of Hansard, and we decided that this is the right basis and the right sanction. Since then it has twice been considered in the elected Chamber, and each time they were told on Second Reading, first by Mr. Heath's Minister of State, and subsequently by the present Minister of State, that the defamation clause was the guts of the Bill and that they had to decide whether, in principle, this way of enforcing sanctions was right, and on both occasions they said, "Yes".
It is quite useless, of course, to leave out Clause 8 unless you leave out sub-section (4)(a), which is the whole basis of an action for defamation. An action for defamation as it now is would be absolutely unless to the rehabilitated person if it were not for the provision which forms the basis; that no evidence
1376
of his rehabilitated offence is to be admissible. It is as simple as that. To leave out the defamation clause will help nobody on either side of the controversy, unless those who are opposed to the Bill first delete subsection (4)(a). That has always been the guts of it and, obviously, I am unable to concur with it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is the second time in this Committee stage that the noble and learned Lord has wholly failed to deal with the argument that was placed before the Committee. I entirely understand what he has just said. When it comes to an action for defamation—and the whole point of an action for defamation is that somebody mentioned when he should not have done, or published when he should not have done, the facts or surrounding circumstances of the spent conviction—it is perfectly plain that you have to keep those facts or those surrounding circumstances out of the defamation action. Otherwise, it does not make sense at all. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord on that point. If that is the case, and he has not already done it, then he ought to make a suitable provision for Clause 8 which governs defamation actions to make perfectly certain that this is so.
What he has failed to do is to answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on any points that he made as they related to any other action whatever, except a defamation action which would be protected by this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has deployed a two-fold argument. He said that in any other such action where somebody's past record is being investigated or sought to be investigated, the way Clause 4(1)(a) is drafted is a total nonsense for the reasons he has given. The noble and learned Lord has not answered that in any particular whatever. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, went on to say that even if you did not have Clause 4(1)(a), the law as it stands, and the law of evidence as it stands, is perfectly adequate to deal with any such circumstances and it would, in practice, prevent the spent conviction being raised except in circumstances where under the Bill, by virtue of Clause 7(3), it can be raised anyway. That is the burden of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. The

1377
noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has not dealt with that either.
If he wants to have complete surety in the defamation cases, I am with him. The defamation clause makes no sense at all without it. If, however, he wishes to add an absolutely impossible situation, which is in any event unjustified because the law already covers it adequately, to every other trial where the issue may arise, then he has not sought to answer—and has made no impression on me, at any rate—the noble and learned Lord who moved this Amendment. Really, we are not going to get very far—and I say this with the greatest deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—if he talks about something quite different from what was said by the person who moved the Amendment.
LORD DIPLOCK: May I make it quite clear to the noble Lord that I was not dealing with defamation actions at all. I was dealing with actions other than defamation actions, and I was doing so because Clause 4(1) is expressly subject to the following provision in Clauses 7 and 8—the latter being the defamation clause. When we come to the defamation clause I have in my name several Amendments which I hope will simplify that matter and provide a proper remedy for a rehabilitated person. I want to make it quite clear that I was talking about actions other than defamation actions.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: If I may speak briefly—because I am conscious of the fact that although this is a very important Amendment we still have a very substantial distance to go—I should just like to say that I, like my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, take the view that this Amendment represents a blow against the principle of the Bill, and that if this Amendment were to be carried it would have the most substantial consequences for the Bill. One of the main purposes of this measure is to free the ex-offender from the risk and hazard of disclosure of his criminal record, and the simple fact of the matter is that if this Amendment is carried he cannot be so freed. I think the Amendment represents a serious dilution of the effect of the Bill, not only in terms of the evidence it would allow the judicial authorities to receive, but also in so far as the proceedings were reportable by the Press and the media. Therefore I hope
1378
that the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am very disappointed in that reply: I really am. It is an endeavour to answer the speech of my noble and learned friend, and that we welcome; but as an answer it is really wholly inadequate. I am astonished that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, should say: "This is the guts of the Bill" I think that is quite misconceived. The trouble we are getting into with regard to this particular provision is that, again, the net has been thrown so wide that the questions have tended to get blurred. But what we are dealing with here is not defamation: we shall come to that when we get to Clause 8. Nor are we dealing with the foundation of defamation or of the circumstances in which a man may be freed from the effect of a previous conviction. These are not the effects of this Amendment or of this clause. This clause deals with procedures in court, and the difficulty in its application comes about because of the width of the definition of a judicial authority.
I can only speak, with perhaps a little authority, with regard to court proceedings. That is why I am so surprised when, in relation to court proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, says: "This is the guts of the Bill." I quote his phrase: it is his English, not mine. But I cannot see that it possibly is. In civil proceedings—and this is all that we are concerned with, because it would not affect criminal proceedings—I cannot myself ever recollect evidence tending to prove a spent conviction being brought before the court. I do not think it happens in civil proceedings. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, with his great experience, has any recollection of a case where that has happened—or indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder—but if it is an issue before the court then Clause 7(3) would apply and you would be allowed to have evidence in regard to those spent convictions in order that justice could be done. This is what the Bill provides, and if the spent conviction is not relevant to an issue before the court which requires to be determined for justice to be done, then it must be inadmissible—because you only have admissible evidence allowed in the courts

1379
in relation to issues to be determined, subject to the one exception that a witness can, always be cross-examined as to credit.
Paragraph (b) deals with that. If I may summarise, it provides that a person shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question dealing with a spent conviction; and as long as you keep that provision in you have the real safeguard for bringing out spent convictions in civil proceedings in the courts. That is the essential part of this clause, I venture to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—not this part, which is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose, though it may be a provision which can be called by those who misread it (as I think it has been misread) as being "the guts of the Bill". I do not believe for one moment it is that.
I would support the retention of Clause 4(1)(b). It may need slight amendment, but I would support the bar on persons being asked, and if asked being required to answer, questions relating to spent convictions, and I think that is all one needs for court proceedings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Supposing the offending reference was to some documentary evidence, quite apart from the business of specific questions to witnesses?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I regret that I have not followed the gist of the noble and learned Lord's question. If the reference was contained in a document produced in court, either the document would be inadmissible or admissible. I cannot think that a list of spent convictions would be relevant to any issue in the ordinary civil case. I cannot see that as a reality. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will be able to confirm whether his experience would support this, but I really do not see this difficulty.
The real difficulty is what are you going to do about other investigating bodies which are not courts of law? I think one of the difficulties about the Bill is that it treats courts of law and other investigating bodies as if they were entirely the same. That is what I think has given rise to problems in drafting. The observations I have made so far have been in regard to courts. When one turns to the other bodies, which
1380
are by definition judicial authorities, one asks how they are to function? They are usually lay bodies. Sometimes, like Treasurers of the Inns of Court, they are lawyers of distinction; but I do not know whether all the Church disciplinary bodies contain lawyers to advise them on these difficult matters—I am quite sure a great many other bodies do not.
In connection with those bodies it may be that there should be some clear guidance given on how to proceed. That, I can well see; but I do not think they get that under the Bill. I think we have a problem in relation to those bodies, which requires more thought. One does not want those kinds of bodies to be receiving much evidence about spent convictions, and I suspect that ordinarily they would not want it. Most of them would say: "This has nothing to do with it: we are not concerned with it." But there are cases where some of those spent convictions may be very relevant.
Let us take the case of a Bar student who comes before his Treasurer on an offence of dishonesty—shoplifting, perhaps. The first question the Treasurer may want to ask (with a view to finding out whether it is possible to overlook this offence before admission to the Bar) will be: "Was it your first offence?" If it was not and if there had been a spent conviction beforehand, under the Bill as it stands under a later provision, he can probably answer, "Yes"—when, in fact, it is not a first offence. However, in this kind of inquiry one may get into real difficulties by a provision about no evidence tending to prove the contrary. First, I doubt very much whether very often a lay body has any idea of what is or is not evidence.
When you get on to tending to prove the contrary they will say, "Contrary to what?" There will be difficulties in regard to a lay body. So far as the courts are concerned—and it is the courts with which this part of the Bill is primarily concerned—I take the view that far from being the guts of the Bill it is complete surplusage. I think it would be better to have that part excised, even though I recognise that you may have to make special provision in relation to other lay bodies who are exercising disciplinary powers. I therefore support

1381
the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
LORD SALMON: I have the misfortune to disagree with my noble friends because Clause 4(1)(a) cannot do any harm in any conceivable view. If justice requires in civil proceedings—whether before a court or some other authority—that the evidence shall be given, there is the power in Clause 7(3)(a) for the authority to admit the evidence. If you leave out Clause 4(1)(a), there is the risk in a court that a document would be introduced which would be relevant to the proceedings and which would be read out in the court, but tucked away in it would be the fact that "X" was guilty of a criminal offence ten years earlier. If you leave out Clause 4(1)(a) you emasculate the Bill in so far as it is designed to protect "X" in circumstances such as those. I agree that it is unusual for that evidence to be tendered in any other way in a court of law. But I have known of many cases where documents are introduced in a court which contain such information. I am not talking about oral evidence. There are proceedings before authorities that are sometimes conducted in public. If you leave out Clause 4(1)(a), there is nothing to prevent evidence on the man's past convictions being given and publicised in such proceedings. For that reason, I consider that, rightly or wrongly, it is essential to retain Clause 4(1)(a), and I have not yet heard any reason advanced to show that it could conceivably do any harm to retain it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I intervene once more to make two points. On many occasions I have had the misfortune to move an Amendment from the Back-Benches and have been told by a Government spokesman that, although it does not do any harm, it does not do any good either and, therefore, it would be better if it did not go in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred to documentary evidence as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. What is counsel to do if he has a complete document and he wishes to present it to the judge or any other tribunal? Is he to cut bits out of it, or read it out and, when he gets to the offending party say, "Now here is something to which we are not to pay any attention" and then to read on?
1382
Throughout, my approach to the Bill is of a humble practitioner. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I are the only practitioners and all we want to know is what we are supposed to do in the courts on these matters. Since the point has been raised about a document and how it is to be dealt with, I believe we should like to know in what way some extra protection is to be given. If you introduce the document, even if you do not read it out, the judge will see it, but of course he will disregard it. Therefore, what is the point of this paragraph?
LORD SALMON: The short answer is that he will read out the parts in the document which are relevant and will not include the part which talks about a prior conviction. Unless Clause 4(1)(a) is retained, there is nothing to prevent him reading out the whole document. What is of account it what is read out in court. I do not mind the judge seeing the whole document at all, although it depends on the judge. If that part of the document is not relevant, there cannot be any possible objection to leaving it out. Why should it be read out?
2.45 p.m.
LORD HALE: I rose earlier to make an observation which would have been much less effective than that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. Surely it is common practice in agreeing correspondence for the solicitors to agree that some matter is prejudicial or irrelevant and, with the leave of the Master, one submits an agreed correspondence which is copied out. It is rarely submitted in the original to the judge, although the original has to be available in case a question arises. That is what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to in his intervention. Documentary evidence is essential in the proceedings, it cannot be excluded. Unless the Amendment is in, it can only be put into practice by agreement between the solicitors and by the litigants.
Many people say, "This clause does not add anything and, therefore, let us leave it out". I have spent half my life in Parliament saying that I cannot see any reason for leaving out a perfectly useful, clear and explanatory clause. On the first Amendment a noble Lord said that we must trust the Parliamentary

1383
draftsman. Being rude to the Parliamentary draftsman used to be said to be a rather unnecessary occupation of troublesome Left-Wing Members in the House of Commons. More recently it has been an occupation of the Court of Appeal and is quite common. In the course of this week—I may be quoting inaccurately—the Court of Appeal said, "We now have to look with much more care than we have ever done before because we realise that there are difficulties which we did not conceive might happen in the interpretation of a vital clause of the Act which deals with misrepresentations on sales." The question was whether a car was a new one if it had had minor repairs on its journey to the garage, and so on.
Much as we admire the Parliamentary draftsman, and much as we should abstain from criticism of his exercising his esoteric art, we should not assume his infallibility. Professor Einstein said that he never made notes and only had two ideas in his life—he had forgotten one, and the other was the General Theory of Relativity which was still the subject of argument. He almost added that, if he were to be proved right in the end, the Germans would say that he was a German and the French would say he was a Jew. If the theory was proved invalid the Germans would say he was a Jew and the French would say he was a German! Perhaps that is not terribly material to this clause.
The other point I should like to make in a single sentence is that surely the interconnected clause which introduces these tribunals—I would think without much hope of achieving very much—is a bona fide attempt to deal with the defence of quasi-judicial privilege. These courts are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I should have thought that that was so. I have dared to intervene at all to-day only because so many distinguished noble and learned Lords are disagreeing with one another that we lesser fry can come in and be fortified by the fact that whatever we say will be agreed to by one or other of them. On this occasion I seem to have missed my opportunity: I do not see any signs of assent at all.
2.50 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: I wonder whether I may deal with the question of documents
1384
which has obviously troubled a number of your Lordships. Of course I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon that if it happened to-day in a court of law, without any of this Bill applying at all, that one of the documents containing material relevant to the case contained a reference to a spent conviction which was not relevant, the way to deal with it is perfectly simple. As my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon says, the judge sees the document and takes care that the part about the conviction is not read out in court. That is something that happens to-day not infrequently without convictions being spent. One does not allow material which is not relevant but denigratory of someone to be read out in court. That lies within the judge's power.
The trouble with paragraph (a) is that it does too much. It provides:
" no evidence tending to prove the contrary shall be received by any court ".
When there is a trial before a judge alone, if the judge sees the document then the evidence has been "received" by the court, whether or not he says, as of course he would: "Don't let it be read out in court". The trouble with paragraph (a) is not the motive that lies behind it—of that I wholeheartedly approve—but the practical difficulties which it is going to cause in the carrying out of litigation, the difficulty that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross referred to: "What is counsel to do?" In this particular matter, at any rate in courts, I would confirm the experience of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. In the whole of my career at the Bar, which was concerned with civil actions and not with criminal actions—what we are talking about to-day—and in the whole of my time as a judge on the trial bench, I cannot recall one single occasion on which there has been brought out in court by counsel a reference to an old conviction. If counsel had ever tried to do that when I was presiding over the trial, he would have had very short shrift and would have been prevented.
This is the kind of problem which can be dealt with by the etiquette, the custom and the ethos of those who conduct cases in courts of law. Once one tries to lay down in black and white rules of this kind then one either goes too far, as in

1385
the instance concerning documentary evidence, or else fails to do anything to improve the present situation.
LORD HAYTER: It is quite clear to me from what has been said that among those judicial authorities to which reference is made are many other bodies than courts of law. We have agreed on that. One of them is the rules governing any association, institution, profession, occupation or employment. It may be helpful if I say that there is a body called The British Security Industry Association, and all the firms who are in that Association are agreed that one of the requirements laid down by their Standard Committee is that they are required to obtain favourable references from previous employers for all applicants for employment during a continuous period of twenty years. That is our standard as it is now. I can see the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that if we are going to deal with a situation of this kind, not in a court of law but in this particular situation—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? We are dealing here with what happens before judicial authorities as so defined;

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Sandford, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Glasgow, E.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Selkirk, E.

Cathcart, E.

Grenfell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kennet, L.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Diplock, L. [Teler.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Reigate, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Bernstein, L.

Marris of Greenwich, L.

Royle, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hayter, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

St. Just, L.

Brockway, L.

Hertford, M.

Salmon, L.

Burntwood, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Byers, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B. [Teller.]

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Derwent, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell Davies, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

McLeavy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

we are not dealing here at the present moment in this Amendment with inquiries made in relation to references. I think that the observations which the noble Lord has made so far are perhaps more pertinent to Clause 4(2)(a), with great respect, which we shall be discussing later, than they are to the particular Amendment under consideration.
LORD HAYTER: Then of course we get into the situation, which has been noticed before, that the wording of this Bill is very obscure. I was taking the point that a "judicial authority" includes any tribunal, body or person having power under the rules governing that Association to deal with evidence. To my mind—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has made the point—if it is clear to me and to my Association that there is no evidence to be admitted on this point, I know where I am; but if it is not there, then I do not know where I am at all.
2.57 p.m.
On Question. Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 48.
3.0 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 61, leave out ("whether") and insert (" otherwise than ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together because they are consequential upon one another. The purpose of Amendment No. 7, which I concede may not be very happily drafted, is directed to this. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) are designed to entitle people, when being asked about spent convictions, to tell lies. I recognise that if one is to make this Bill effective in trying to prevent information about spent convictions coming out, then it is proper and necessary that one should authorise them to tell what I should describe as white lies. Despite the casuistry and ingenuity with which paragraph (a) is drafted, that is what it comes to, and it seems to me that one must draw the line somewhere.
Speaking as one who has been concerned with the administration of justice all his life, if you allow this to include lies upon oath and perjury you are making a mockery of the oath and cheapening the value of the oath in legal proceedings by saying that in this kind of case you may commit perjury to your heart's content. I know that the Amendment goes wider because of the wide definition of "judicial authority", but what this Amendment is intended to do is to draw the line at lies on oath—at licensed perjury. It is a matter which I suggest Parliament ought to consider very carefully before it gives legal sanction to lying upon oath. As regards the rest, I agree that that is a white lie, and I do not mind; I think that is acceptable.
That is the purpose of this Amendment. As I say, in the form it is in now it goes too wide, because it would include some of the heterogeneous tribunals where evidence is not given on oath. But that is the purpose of it.
LORD GARDINER: I hope I too may now speak, if the noble and learned Lord does not mind, to Amendment No. 8. I do not know that these Amendments would do great harm, provided that the provisions of paragraph (b) of Clause 4(1) are strictly observed in every case; but in practice it is bound to happen sooner or later, that despite those
1388
provisions a witness is asked whether he has been convicted, and answers "no" because he believes that he is entitled to treat his conviction as spent and he knows that he is a rehabilitated person. This could happen while the judge was reading a document, or more likely in a magistrates' court, where the prosecution is conducted by a junior police officer, the magistrates are all laymen and the clerk is looking up a point in Stone. Unless the Bill protects him in some other way the witness might well be held to be guilty of perjury in such a case. That would clearly be wrong. This is why paragraph (a) of Clause 4(2) extends to the question in court as well as to the question out of court. It appears to me that these Amendments seek to remove that safety net.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, I really do not think that is right. As our last discussion showed, the case one has to face up to is that of a witness being cross-examined as to credit in civil proceedings. We are not here concerned at all with criminal proceedings. Under Clause 4(1)(b) any person with a spent conviction must not be asked, and if he is asked he is not required to answer, any question about that conviction. So his position is perfectly clear. He is entitled to refuse to answer, and nothing can happen to him. It seems to me to be quite wrong to go on from that to provide that if certain things go wrong in court because someone is looking in a book or someone is not paying any attention, which is the case put by the noble and learned Lord, he can lie on oath.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, indicated that this provision about lying on oath was required only as an ultimate safeguard for the witness, the person who has had a spent conviction, because the clause will not apply to anyone else. I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord really could have accepted both these Amendments without doing any real injury to his Bill. I hope he will bear in mind that subsection (2)(a) does apply to the man who will be asked about his own conviction, and he is given the clearest possible right to refuse to answer that question if it is asked by inadvertence and without anyone realising its significance.

1389
With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think I have ever heard a worse reason advanced for inserting a provision in a Bill sanctifying and making it legal for a person to tell lies on oath. I cannot think that is right; I cannot think it is necessary, and I hope the Committee will agree to make these minor changes in the Bill. I agree with my noble and learned friend in what he said about the rest of it. That I think is the very important part of the Bill, that if you are asked in other proceedings about these matters you can interpret the question a certain way and give a certain answer—a white lie, if you like, but you are not lying on oath. I think that particular provision was inserted into the Bill at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; I think it is right to have it there and I hope that we may reach a compromise about it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and I are devout persons with high moral standards. The suggestion in this Amendment is a criticism of the Bill for diluting the meaning of the word "truth"; that it turns lies into truth. But a man can say he has no previous convictions, when actually he has had some convictions which have been spent under the terms of this legislation. The Bill requires us to tell the truth according to the law. If this Bill is passed, a man will be quite entitled to answer that he has no previous convictions if those convictions, under this particular law, have been spent.
In the law of the land and the practice of the courts, we have many precedents for this kind of what I might call modified truth. Under motoring laws there are some offences that are conveniently "forgotten" after a period of years. We have many precedents under the law whereby one thing is deemed to be something else. For example, for capital gains tax purposes there are sometimes deemed prices at which transfers take place, although those may not be the exact prices and conditions under which the transfer takes place. Where property is bought and sold at what might be called an unrealistic price, the law sometimes deems that an "arms-length price" must be substituted for the price actually paid. The word "deemed" very frequently appears in the law regarding estate duty.
1390
So I do not think there is anything revolutionary about this proposal that what is truth in one case should be deemed not necessarily to be the truth in the other. I oppose the Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
LORD SALMON: I feel that here we have to balance what there is to be said on both sides. Clause 4(1)(b) protects a person in that it lays down he shall not be asked the question. There is the odd case in which by mistake he may be asked the question, and Clause 4(1)(a) if it were accepted, would entitle him to tell a lie. There is no question about that. To me it is shocking that by Act of Parliament a man should be entitled and, indeed, encouraged to tell a lie. However strong my sympathy is with this Bill—and it is very strong indeed—if I have to choose between passing a section which I think would deface the Statute Book and taking the risk of of a man being prejudiced by being asked a question by mistake, I should refuse to deface the Statute Book. I do not agree that it helps a man to say: "I won't answer ", because the true answer is then obvious. But in spite of that, I can see no reason for making it law that he can tell what is a lie by whatever method of legal casuistry one can say: "Well, what is not true is not really a lie". I am bound to say I support the Amendment.
May I just add that I am certain the professional disciplinary bodies, the Law Society, the Senate of the Bar, the Inns of Court and the Bar Council, would make it quite plain that it is a very, very serious breach of professional conduct which would be almost certainly visited by the offender being disbarred or struck off the roll if any such question were asked.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I just say that I have spent a good deal of time in the last two days talking on the telephone to various eminent people, among them practising lawyers, about what questions one can properly ask (because, after all, one has to assume the person being questioned is not one's own witness) which would not first of all assume that counsel has to go into a great deal of research as to the criminal antecedents of every witness who may be called by the other side (which frankly is

1391
not possible), and secondly, which will be put in such a way as to avoid putting a question which must automatically result in a person's previous spent conviction being given away out of his own mouth, to make it almost inevitable that the man, by complying with the provisions of the Bill which allow him to deny or to pretend that the question is something other than it was, will not give himself away. So far, and it may be that I am not very clever, I have not been able to devise a question which is foolproof.
I am exceptionally concerned at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, has just said. Of course I must declare an interest if this dire fate were to overtake me and I got the question wrong, and therefore I am even more concerned. I am concerned for the way in which a case may properly be run. I have always said that I want this Bill, if it is humanly possible, to go through. But I have also always said that I want it to work.
If we really are in a dilemma about there being problems for counsel—and I think there are—as to how they are to put their questions so as to correspond with the spirit and practice of this Bill, then I think we need some guidance. This is relevant to the present Amendment, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, has pointed out that the main protection is in Clause 4(1)(b). If we can devise questions and a procedure, which apply to all those who appear in front of tribunals and which abide by Clause 4(1)(b), and if we can produce a fair question incapable of giving the show away as well as of having the practitioner disbarred, then, very likely, we do not need the full rigours of Clause 4(2)(a), and we can accept the Amendment. Therefore, I seek guidance from those who are promoting this Bill, and this may have a direct bearing on what we do about this Amendment.
3.21 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question before he replies. In a later section of the Bill—and I have a rather deficient copy—there is provision for application to be made to a judge
1392
in civil proceedings, whereby he can agree that references may be made to a spent conviction. But, apparently, there is no similar provision in regard to criminal proceedings. If you have a situation, as often happens, where one convict makes a confession of a crime to another convict, and that becomes relevant in relation to proceedings in which some person is innocently accused, how can you deal with it under this Bill? It is quite clear that the person to whom the confession was made would not be permitted to say, and could not be asked, what he was doing in the gaol; it would clearly be an infraction of the whole spirit of the Bill. It seems to me that many such similar situations arise here.
If I may make one general observation, I think that what we are trying to do in this clause goes beyond what is reasonable. In court proceedings, very often, a person subpoenaed to give evidence is heavily embarrassed. For instance, there is the situation where a man and woman are living together as man and wife, and they have to disclose on oath for the first time to the world that they are not man and wife. This is a very serious embarrassment, more serious to many people than spent convictions; yet we accept for the integrity of justice that people are embarrassed. I cannot help thinking that seeking to give them protection in this single instance, and leaving the whole of the rest of the area of embarrassment untouched, is trying to make too perfect a job—something which I remember a German jurist called "completomania"—of this piece of legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will permit me, very briefly, to express the hope that in the light of the observations made he will find himself able to accept these Amendments.
LORD GARDINER: I was about to rise to say that I did not think it was an Amendment of great importance. In the hope of saving time, and in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, has said, I do not propose to resist this Amendment, or I, think, even the next one or two.
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 62, leave out (" or otherwise ").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 62, leave out (" deemed not to relate ") and insert (" treated as not relating ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is really nothing more than a drafting Amendment. I hate the phrase "deemed not to relate". One has to use it in a Finance Act, but do not let us use it in something dealing with ordinary human beings. My Amendment is to substitute "treated as not relating". I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is consequential on the Amendments the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, accepted to Clause 4(2)(a).
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out (" or penalty ").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("and any conduct relevant thereto ").
The noble and learned Viscount said: We are making progress, but I think that we have to look at this Amendment a little more fully in the light of the difficulties of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which are considerable. The Committee will see that Clause 4(1)(b) says that a person cannot be asked any question
" referring to a spent conviction or spent convictions or any circumstances ancillary thereto."
The words "any circumstances ancillary thereto" are defined in subsection (4) on page 4:
" That is to say—
(a) the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction; "
That is hardly ancillary to the conviction; it is the conviction. Be that as it may,
1394
I do not think that that matters. But then you get (b):
" the conduct constituting that offence or those offences"—
which I think is clear enough, but then follow the words this Amendment seeks to take out—
" and any conduct relevant thereto;".
As a matter of construction and drafting I should have thought that the words "any conduct relevant thereto" must relate to conduct which does not constitute that offence or those offences, because if it did it would be covered by the preceding words. You are putting an impossible task on advocates and counsal if you are leaving it to them to have to interpret whether the question they are asking relates to any conduct which it-self does not constitute the offence or the offences but is relevant thereto.
Then you go on with (c) and (d), and perhaps we can discuss the next two Amendments at the same time. Paragraph (c) says:
" any process or proceedings relating to or arising from that conviction or the offence or offences which were the subject thereof or the conduct constituting that offence or those offences, and any sentence imposed in respect of that conviction;
" (d) any other circumstances connected with or arising from that conviction, those offences or that conduct."
I suspect that the object of the noble and learned Lord is to try to stop people evading the object of Clause 4(1)(b), and extending Clause 4(2)(a) so that the secret does not come out.
We ought to try to get a closer definition of the limits which are covered, because otherwise I can see it leading to a very great deal of argument and discussion, and possibly or probably an unfortunate result. It is a question of where you draw the line. It is going too far to include the words, "any conduct relevant to the offence". Any conduct which constitutes the offences, or forms part of the offence clearly, yes, but I think it is going too far to cover with that any process subsequent to those offences. I wait to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I am not unsympathetic if his object is what I think it to be, but this is putting an impossible task on individuals. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I make one further point about my practical difficulties? It really arises out

1395
of one of the noble and learned Lord's speeches on Second Reading on this point. What one wishes to avoid—it is the whole point of the Bill—is having anything relating to a spent conviction brought up in front of the court. One wants to protect the person who is rehabilitated, so that a spent conviction is not mentioned at all.
What I am concerned about is where my witness, whom I as counsel know to have previous convictions some of which are spent—perhaps all are—is in the witness box and is being cross-examined by my opponent who does not know that. I have done my best to tell my own witness that there are certain things he need not answer. As my opponent does not know there is any question of spent convictions coming into this, he may stray on to forbidden territory. At what point, as I mull through subsection (4) of the clause, do I object to a question? The moment I object to a question I have to say why. The reason immediately emerges that I am objecting because it relates to a spent conviction. The gaff is blown and the whole protection of the Bill has disappeared. That is exactly what we want to avoid.
Therefore, I support the idea that we should aim for precision here; otherwise, counsel will be in an agony of dismay. He will either let the cross-examination go nearer and nearer the nub of the whole matter because he dare not object lest he give the whole thing away, with the possible result that he will allow the matter to go one stage too far and a question will be asked which plainly divulges a conviction, although it is now spent; or he will object too early and the matter will be given away in any event. Therefore, it is another practical dilemma on which I would seek the guidance of those who drafted the Bill as it now stands.
3.32 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Can the noble and learned Lord take on board one more question, which may be an objection? What would happen in the case of the following villainy? A man is charged and convicted of a relatively minor offence, knowing it will become spent within the minimum period. Nevertheless, during the conduct of that case it becomes evident to the police that he has committed a major offence for which he is subsequently tried and convicted. That offence is of such gravity that it is not
1396
rehabilitable or expendable later. Would he not be able to claim, for instance in a defamation case, that his major conviction was a proceeding relating to or arising from his minor conviction?
LORD GARDINER: I should have thought the answer to that was, "No". I do not know that these three Amendments matter enormously. It is a question of drawing a line. I am not saying it is necessarily an easy line. I do not think that it is. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable employers, insurers and others—including, possibly, cross-examining counsel—to avoid the provisions of the Bill by asking questions such as "Have you ever been in prison?" which is not related to any particular conviction: or: "Have you ever been fined?" "Have you ever been arrested?" "Have you ever been charged?" "Have you ever been prosecuted?" Any questions could be asked, bringing out an old conviction without directly relating to, "Have you had a conviction?"
Accordingly, what the present law is intended to do is to cover a wider area, and to prevent ancillary questions which would eventually lead anybody to draw the conclusion that a person must have been convicted. I agree it is not easy to know how far the line should be drawn. In the other House, I understand, the line is considered to be in about the right place. I agree it is not altogether easy. But it would allow both employers and insurers to put questions of this kind.
LORD DIPLOCK: I fully sympathise with the object of this extension. I agree that it is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line, though I should have thought that questions such as, "Have you ever been in prison?" were covered without the great extension that this involves. It seems to me that this draws the line so far that it is almost impossible to know where it is, and it is essential that counsel should know that in order to know how to conduct the case and how to conduct himself decently in court. May I look at paragraph (c) for a moment? That says:
" any process or proceedings relating to or arising from that conviction or the offence or offences … or the conduct…".
If you take the case of a civil action which is brought subsequently against the swinder, that would inevitably be, I think,

1397
" proceedings arising out of the conduct constituting the offence ". It is generally not much good bringing such an action until he has acquired some money to make it worth while bringing those proceedings; but it seems to me that, if those proceedings are brought after the rehabilitation period, which may be short in a case of, perhaps, a probation order or a conditional discharge, you could not refer to it.
If one looks at paragraph (d)—and this is the sort of worry I have about a very wide definition like this—that says:
" any other circumstances connected with or arising from that conviction, those offences or that conduct ".
Suppose the wife of a convicted person divorces him because of the conduct which was the subject of the conviction. Is one to be prohibited by this from asking any question about the divorce, or indeed about the fact of the divorce? I would venture to ask my noble and learned friend to see whether he could consider—and I will gladly consult with him about it—some definition which does not bring in these dangers, which he really certainly did not intend to cover.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope we need not spend any more time on these Amendments. I think enough has been said to indicate that in the view of some of us the line is drawn far too wide. I think we have made out a strong case for that. What I am going to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is that, if he is prepared to do it, those of us who are interested in this particular part of the Bill should try to meet with the Government and with him, of course, to see whether we can agree upon a line. I agree it will not be easy to define, but I think it must be drawn a little narrower than it is. If we can do that before the Report stage, then it may save a great deal of time. I do not propose to ask the Committee to look at this any more now. On that basis—and I understand the noble and learned Lord is agreeable—I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I shall not move the next two.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rehabilitation periods for particular sentences]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 50, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment in relation to courts-martial—taking out the reference to cashiering, and so on. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is again consequential for the same reason. I beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 31.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is consequential on the court-martial Amendment being carried. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Viscount said: I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will now concede that the necessary consequentials were put down in relation to courts-martial. This is also consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [The rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 56, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the foreign conviction which shall be disregarded unless the offence is one triable on indictment or which would be so triable in this country. Having regard to the discussion which we had about

1399
foreign convictions it follows that I should not move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert (" and a sentence of imprisonment was passed in consequence of the conviction.").
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really bringing into line—although the wording is a little different—something which is related to courts-martial and the Amendment is again consequential.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Limitations on rehabilitation under this Act, et cetera]:
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert—
(" (e) any questions put, or inquiries made, by, or on behalf of any government department for the purposes of positive vetting.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to which I feel it is my duty to draw the attention of the Committee in view of my position as Chairman of the Security Commission. As the Bill stands at present, it would apply to the positive vetting procedure and would entitle the person being interrogated to deny and to conceal spent convictions. There are some of these—for instance, drug taking—which it is quite essential should be disclosed and known when examining whether people are to have access to highly sensitive documents which, if disclosed, might have ruinous effects upon the country. The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude positive vetting from the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has indicated, this is a fairly narrow point. We shall be having a number of matters looked at and I think that it might be a good idea to have a look at this particular issue. There are a number of other related matters, of which this is only one—there are inquiries on, for instance, firearm certificates and things of that sort—and I think that I should like to have a look at this before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DIPLOCK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10a, line 7, leave out (" between the parties ").
The noble and learned Viscount said: We have now reached that Part of the Bill which defines those proceedings and those circumstances under which the provisions of Clause 4, which we have been discussing, shall not apply. This Amendment provides that the evidence of spent convictions and conduct relating thereto may be admitted in civil proceedings if the court or authority is satisfied that justice cannot be done between the parties except by receiving or requiring evidence relating to a person's spent convictions. What appears to have been forgotten is that the civil proceedings, having that wide definition because of judicial authority, may well not be a matter of inter-Party litigation. It may be an inquiry where there is no other party to it. I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that that was probably an oversight by the draftsman of the Bill. As it stands at present it would mean that, except in adversary litigation where there are parties, this exception would not apply and accordingly, even though it was necessary for justice to be done that a conviction should be disclosed, it would not be permitted to be disclosed. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I was not sure to what issue this point was directed. As the noble and learned Lord has explained it I now understand it, and I would certainly be happy to consider it with the draftsman before the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10a, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment and the next one are both directed to the same point. Your Lord-ships may by now be aware that this is a Bill of very complex structure. We are

1401
here dealing with exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 4. This starts by making general exceptions. Sub-section (3) makes the exception, subject to the Amendment which I will be discussing with my noble and learned friend, that this evidence can be introduced if the justice of the case requires. Subsection (4) provides that in relation to a particular issue—that is to say compliance with an obligation to disclose—evidence cannot be admitted even though justice cannot be done except by admitting it. That is the consequence of excepting it from the operation of subsection (3).
Subsection (5) does the same thing. Read together with subsection (3) it provides that even though the court is satisfied that justice cannot be done except by receiving or requiring evidence relating to a person's spent conviction, nevertheless that cannot be allowed. Uphold the Bill though justice fall. I know perfectly well why these two exceptions are in—at least, I think I do. It is because the great handicaps which a rehabilitated person suffers are in the field of insurance and in the field of employment. Sub-section (4) is directed to the field of insurance and subsection (5) is directed to the field of employment. Subsection (5)—this is the one which worries me exceedingly—provides that even though justice requires it you cannot give evidence of a spent conviction if the issue
" is the propriety of the dismissal or exclusion of the rehabilitated person from any office, profession, occupation or employment ".
The example which disturbs me is this. An education authority may have employed as a schoolmaster a man who had a previous conviction for indecent assault upon children, not knowing of this fact. A very common sentence, if that was the first offence—and certainly one that I should myself have considered giving—is to put him on probation on condition that he does not take a job that involves associating with children. The two years' probation expires, he gets a job with the local education authority, or the governors of a school, or as a scout master, without disclosing that conviction. The employers then find out. It is certainly their moral duty, and indeed their legal duty, to terminate his employment. He then brings proceedings either for wrongful dismissal or for unfair dismissal before an industrial tribunal. The employers cannot give the reason
1402
why they terminated his employment and they are left wholly without defence, although no one could say otherwise than that the justice of the case required that reason to be disclosed.
The problem of insurance and the problem of discrimination in employment is, from the practical point of view, the most serious problem which a rehabilitated person faces. I would not suggest dealing with it by moving that these two clauses be left out of the Bill, but I have in mind some new clauses to be moved later by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne to deal with the problem of insurance and employment at the place where it hits, and not to try to do it by excluding evidence of previous convictions in cases where justice cannot be done unless they are disclosed. Let us tackle this problem in a straightforward way instead of in this roundabout, devious way. I beg to move.
LORD GOODMAN: If I may, I should like to say a word on this matter. I hope your Lordships will notice that this exclusion applies to a situation where, otherwise, a judge, a highly responsible person much concerned with the issues of justice, would be able to admit the evidence. It seems to me quite unnecessary to exclude from the area of a judge's discretion any matters at all. I should have thought it could all be safely left to a judge's discretion as to what was appropriate in the interests of justice. I hope I shall not be regarded as too censorious if I say that provisions like this seem to show a rather fanatical concern for the interests of the convicted person as against the interests of the rest of the community. I think they might arouse a prejudice against the Bill which could well do damage to the very proper and laudable motives of its sponsors.
LORD GARDINER: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is quite right in saying that subsection (4) deals with insurance, and not only with insurance but also with situations of a similar type to Hedley v. Byrne, where a banker may be asked for a reference, and so forth, and subsection (5) with employment. We have not yet had an opportunity of discussing the new clauses. The Bill was always drafted on the basis which now contains the exceptions set out in sub-section (3), and frankly I should like an opportunity of giving further consideration

1403
to what the noble and learned Lord has said before we come to deal with the new clauses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether it would be permissible for the House to discuss Amendments 42 and 43 (the new clauses) in relation to Amendments 23 and 24? If I may say so, it would make a more rounded debate and would cover the kinds of difficulties mentioned by my noble and learned friend.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I appreciate the concern of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On the whole, while we could refer to a future Amendment, perhaps we ought to have a full discussion on those—though we may be told that they are not properly drafted. What is important is that they are attempts to face squarely the employment and insurance questions. These were both matters which featured largely in the Second Reading speech of the noble and learned Lord. He said that he would like to look at these Amendments again in the light of what had been said; and that means there cannot be any objection, even if there has been no satisfaction, in moving these Amendments again on Report, should there be no satisfaction before then. In that case I should have thought we might leave it here and when we come to Report perhaps we shall have considered the new clauses.
LORD GARDINER: May I refer to what I might call the "schoolmaster point", because this is an old one going back eighteen months. It may be this that was primarily to be dealt with by the exceptions which the Secretary of State can always make. I remember saying that though I had had no communication with the Secretary of State, I should think the very first exception he would make would be in respect of schoolmasters who interfered with small boys and similar offences. And Clause 7 (6) says that he:
"… may … exclude the application of section 4 above in relation to any proceedings specified in the order…".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I make one point? I remember very well the point about schoolmasters, because it was one of the things we were talking about in relation to the criminal offence of disclosure, and indeed was one
1404
of the first things that was going to be exempted under the order-making powers that existed even in the old Bill. But one has to bear in mind that unfortunately people who are this way inclined tend to be very persistent. They like, if they possibly can, to go back to situations where they are in some position of authority in relation to children, and they are very ingenious about it.
I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that, even if a person is on the list of the Department of Education and Science under a certain name, it may come about that he is not instantly identified. When it comes to light, no doubt the school will think it is probably a good thing that he should no longer teach there. By that time he has been employed and it is too late to rely on the disclosure under the D.E.S. list. That is why the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has made ought to be covered by justice or some alternative method rather than left simply to the powers under Clause 9.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to subsection (6) which is the subject of a further Amendment. As he introduced it perhaps I could save time by speaking on that subsection now, and avoid moving that Amendment later. I am not at all happy about the constitutional propriety of leaving it to the Secretary of State to draft legislation affecting rights of private individuals, and with other bodies, by order of this kind. This certainly should be provided in the Bill. As the provision in the Bill dealing with this exempted case, and not leaving it to the Secretary of State by order to provide, may be considered between now and Report stage with all the other matters, I hope my noble and learned friend will think fit to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the Committee parts with Amendment No. 23, it would seem that subsection (4) is intended to go wider than the mere insurance field. It covers all obligations imposed by law and not merely those relating to insurance. It covers obligations imposed by contract or tort. For Instance, the Bill denies the defence where a duty to disclose a spent conviction arises under the law of negligent mis-statement, the Hedley v. Byrne type of obligation

1405
of bankers and their references, and under other aspects of the law. I mention that so it can be borne in mind when we give further consideration to this subsection.
LORD DIPLOCK: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Defamation actions]:
4.3 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("words") and insert (" matter ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply a drafting Amendment. In line 4, on page 11, there is a reference to "any words". That would exclude, for example, defamatory matter conveyed by pictures, cartoons or comic strips. I am sure that my noble and learned friend intended to cover them as well as mere "words". The proposal is that the word "matter" be substituted for that which would cover the various kinds of material in which defamatory meanings may be conveyed.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("tending to show ") and insert (" imputing ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. At the moment the subsection reads
"… tending to show that the plaintiff has committed or been charged with … ".
The words "tending to show" are wide, and I am not sure what would be covered by them. The usual words used in the law of defamation are "imputing" and "imputation". I therefore move that we use the simple term "imputing", rather than "tending to show", because I am not sure how those words would be construed by the courts. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I do not want to take up time on this Amendment. "Tending to show" is well-known. On the other hand, "impute", according to the Oxford Dictionary, is a transitive verb and accordingly it is grammatical to say that something imputes a conviction, but not that something imputes that someone has been convicted. I am not convinced that the Amendment is an improvement.
1406
However, I do not want to take up time opposing it.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 5, leave out from (" been ") to (" convicted ").
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment. What we are dealing with here is a spent conviction, and I think there is a great deal of unnecessary verbiage in this provision. The sentence reads now:
" tending to show that the plaintiff has committed "—
and these are the words to note—
" or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for an offence which was the subject of a spent conviction ".
It seems to me quite unnecessary to refer to a person having been "charged with or prosecuted for" a spent conviction, because it will not be a spent conviction unless he has been prosecuted and charged. Those words are therefore, I suggest, quite unnecessary. This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: The wording here precisely reproduces the wording of Clause 4(1) which is repeated in the definition of "specified information" in Clause 9(1). The Amendment would exclude the application of Clause 8 to defamation actions where the words complained of said or suggested that the plaintiff had been charged with an offence or prosecuted for an offence. Accordingly, either the present law would apply to the publication of such words, in which case the muck-raking newspaper would have an easy means of avoiding the provisions of the Bill, or the publisher would be deprived of all offences as if Clause 8 had been left out altogether. The latter seems the better view, and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would consider that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Of course I will consider anything that is said, but this highlights an unusual position. You are going to prevent any reference to a charge where the man has been convicted, when what we are trying to keep secret is the fact he has been convicted;

1407
whereas if the charge is followed by prosecution and an acquittal you can refer to the charge and the prosecution until doomsday. I will look at what the noble and learned Lord has said and, in the light of that, I will not press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not know whether one may raise the question about how far we are going to-night and the future proceedings on this Bill. It might be convenient to do so. One thing I hope is that we shall have sufficient time for some consultation.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think that the noble and learned Viscount is showing his usual wisdom, as one would expect. An adjournment now would obviously give time for consultation, and I believe the Government Chief Whip has a suggestion as to when we might continue.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I think it would be very much to the convenience of the Committee if we adjourned now, and if we changed Government Business yet again for next week and had a second Committee day on
1408
this Bill on Wednesday, and Report and Third Reading probably on Friday. All sorts of other adjustments would be entailed, but this is the main point for this Committee.
LORD GARDINER: I beg to move that the House now be resumed.
House resumed.

THURROCK BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (formerly THURROCK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL)
Reported with Amendments.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to; the remaining Lords Amendments agreed to with Amendments, and with consequential Amendments to the Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes past four o'clock.